Question About McCarthy's Challenge

[BallHawk]

When MM challenged the AP's run on 3rd and 4 with about 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter, he challenged specifically whether or not it was a 1st down.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't he just challenge the spot of the ball? That way if they move the ball back they'd have to measure the spot anyway since the ball's position has changed.

Is there some quirky rule that would prevent MM from doing this? Or did he just have a goof-up?

[Patler]

Re: Question About McCarthy's Challenge

When MM challenged the AP's run on 3rd and 4 with about 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter, he challenged specifically whether or not it was a 1st down.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why wouldn't he just challenge the spot of the ball? That way if they move the ball back they'd have to measure the spot anyway since the ball's position has changed.

Is there some quirky rule that would prevent MM from doing this? Or did he just have a goof-up?

This was explained in another game a few weeks ago (not a Packer game).
You can only challenge the effect of the spot of the ball, not the actual spot itself. So the challenge is whether or not it was a first down, not where the spot was. It was the same result in that game too. The ref changed the spot, but it was still a first down so the challenge was lost.

[cpk1994]

Either way, McCarthy was a bonehead for even deciding to challenge that. He gambled(and lost) a timeout over 3 feet. A timeout that was badly needed at the end of the game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Either way, McCarthy was a bonehead for even deciding to challenge that. He gambled(and lost)

Of course McCarthy is responding to what somebody in the booth saw on replay.

I would NEVER challenge a first down spot unless it was a gross error in placing the ball. Just as spotting is subjective, respotting is also subjective, and the refs are going to be biased against make their colleagues look incompetent. And the rule is biased against the challenger to begin with.

[The Leaper]

I disagree. If that ball is just another inch or two back, the dynamic of the game changes...and the Bears have a tough decision to make.

It was a poor spot...that was obvious. It allowed the Packer defense to catch their breath.

We had plenty of time at the end. Taking 5-6 seconds to snap the ball during the 2 minute drill was more to blame for the lack of time than McCarthy's challenge.

[The Leaper]

And the rule is biased against the challenger to begin with.

I agree. If the refs spot the ball incorrectly, especially on a first down play like that, then Green Bay should have the right to challenge the spot correctly without fear of losing a timeout if the correct spot still barely nets the first down.

The ball was moved about 2 feet. That is rather significant, especially on a tight conversion like that.

[cpk1994]

I disagree. If that ball is just another inch or two back, the dynamic of the game changes...and the Bears have a tough decision to make.

It was a poor spot...that was obvious. It allowed the Packer defense to catch their breath.

We had plenty of time at the end. Taking 5-6 seconds to snap the ball during the 2 minute drill was more to blame for the lack of time than McCarthy's challenge.

I disagree. Having that timeout would have given them more plays. Goign by how it playted out, Favre would not have had to launch into the endzone on the last pass. With the time out he could have worked the whole field a little more and gotten them closer and would have been able to call timeout if they didn't score. Closer to the endzone means they would have forced the Bears to play tighter on defense. IF the timeout was available and used aerlier, they would have had at least an additional 25-30 sec to play with. THey didn't have the timeout, and it left Favre with no option at the end. That bonehead challenge was very costly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I disagree. Having that timeout would have given them more plays.

It would given them exactly 1 more play.

I agree, I would not have challenged that spot because of the difficulty of winning such a challenge. But I'm not sure it was quite a "bonehead" challenge.

Time ran-out in the 2-minute drill because of questionable decisions by Favre and lackluster execution by the offense.

[The Leaper]

Time ran-out in the 2-minute drill because of questionable decisions by Favre and lackluster execution by the offense.

I don't think the 2 minute drill was run improperly. We took exactly what Chicago gave us, 7-9 yards at a time.

The problem was the efficiency. Plays need to be run every 15 seconds. You can't sit around and let 4-6 seconds run off at the line of scrimmage. You know you can get those short bites...so you have to keep doing so, and RAPIDLY, until you get within 30 yards of the endzone.

The Packers wasted too much time coming back to the line of scrimmage. They acted like it was the first quarter. I don't question the play calls or decision making in the 2 minute drill...merely the execution and crispness between plays that lost at least 20-25 valuable seconds.

[Patler]

The problem was the efficiency. Plays need to be run every 15 seconds. You can't sit around and let 4-6 seconds run off at the line of scrimmage. You know you can get those short bites...so you have to keep doing so, and RAPIDLY, until you get within 30 yards of the endzone.

They ran 8 plays in 2 minutes. That surprised me. It didn't seem like that many.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We took exactly what Chicago gave us, 7-9 yards at a time.

Throwing short passes in the middle of the field, when you need a touchdown and time is running out is indefensible.

if they just needed to position for a field goal you might have an arguable point.

[The Leaper]

They ran 8 plays in 2 minutes. That surprised me. It didn't seem like that many.

Yes, but three came in the last 30 seconds.

That is 5 plays in the first 90 seconds...seems slow for 8 yard completions up the gut. I would think a crisp attack could get off 5 plays like that in around 1:00 of time. We wasted 20-25 seconds in taking too much time to get up to the line of scrimmage and snap the ball.

[Patler]

They ran 8 plays in 2 minutes. That surprised me. It didn't seem like that many.

Yes, but three came in the last 30 seconds.

That is 5 plays in the first 90 seconds...seems slow for 8 yard completions up the gut. I would think a crisp attack could get off 5 plays like that in around 1:00 of time. We wasted 20-25 seconds in taking too much time to get up to the line of scrimmage and snap the ball.

I wasn't disagreeing. I was just surprised they ran as many plays as they did. It didn't seem like it.

[retailguy]

They ran 8 plays in 2 minutes. That surprised me. It didn't seem like that many.

Yes, but three came in the last 30 seconds.

That is 5 plays in the first 90 seconds...seems slow for 8 yard completions up the gut. I would think a crisp attack could get off 5 plays like that in around 1:00 of time. We wasted 20-25 seconds in taking too much time to get up to the line of scrimmage and snap the ball.

This would be 10 secs per play, including the time to spot the ball and snap again... That might be a bit optimistic. I'd think you'd need another 5 secs myself, that puts you at 4 plays and then to 6 plays for 90 seconds.

That's one play short, which is probably explained by the 15 "leg raises" that favre did during those last drives....

[cpk1994]

I disagree. Having that timeout would have given them more plays.

It would given them exactly 1 more play.

I agree, I would not have challenged that spot because of the difficulty of winning such a challenge. But I'm not sure it was quite a "bonehead" challenge.

Time ran-out in the 2-minute drill because of questionable decisions by Favre and lackluster execution by the offense.

How is it not boneheaded? He gambled a timout vs. 2 STINKING FEET! A TIMEOUT IS NOT WORTH 2 STINKING FEET! Even if M3 got the spot where he wanted its 4th and inches.

ALso, It could have been more than one play based on when they used that timeout. It would have been two plays at least. IF he throwes a quick one and gets the TO, as long as he dosen't waste time throwing into the endzone, he should have had one more play with abou 1 sec to try again.