The Phantom 1st Down

[GemCity]

FattyKnuckle may be correct. It’s hard to say.
Based off our camera angle, it certainly looked short.

If the refs were calling a great game, I’d have a little less angst with this first down call. But, I saw a lot of Denver holding and hands hitting helmets on tackles that weren’t called. Not just away from the ball action but, lead blocks…that had severe consequences.

If not for that, I would’ve shrugged the call off.

 

[Smellyman]

That spot didn't bother me greatley, but the Fant catch and the Geno sneak were first downs. Those were more egregious and a touchdown taken away. a lot of suspect Side Judge work.

 

[bigskydoc]

There is definitely some parallax error to the angle we have, but what bugs me is that the stick is not plumb. It is clearly leaning back. A plumb stick probably shows a gap there. I assume the referee looks at the spot where the chain attaches, but that's way too close.

Being said, I didn't see a lot of frustrated reactions from the Seahawks that were right there looking at it.

 

[CPHawk]

I’ve seen when the refs use a credit card to determine if it’s a first down or not. This was not a first down.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

camera angle

Absolutely 100% this.

The camera was downfield from the spot creating the appearance that the stick was ahead of the ball.

Unless the are moving the camera trolley to right down the line we can't see what the refs see in that spot

 

[GemCity]

Absolutely 100% this.

The camera was downfield from the spot creating the appearance that the stick was ahead of the ball.

Unless the are moving the camera trolley to right down the line we can't see what the refs see in that spot

But what bigskydoc said is correct. The stick was not held straight and I imagine from the refs angle, it looked like it crossed the plain.

 

[Eamon696]

The whole situation reminds me of this game:

 

[RiverDog]

From the picture displayed in the OP, it doesn't appear to be a right angle look down the line to gain. The ball and marker are not centered in the middle of the picture. If you don't have a perfect 90-degree angle view, it is impossible to tell by a photograph if the ball was short of the line to gain or not.

 

[Sports Hernia]

It was clearly “steering”. Not surprised in the least.

 

[Spohawks]

The whole situation reminds me of this game:

I blew this up and its a solid 3-4 inches short.
On topic, its the camera angle for sure.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

You guys make fair points, but I remain unconvinced! If it was that close they should have gotten out the index card like they have previously! If they couldn't fit it in between then it's a first down! Let me say the refs didn't even take more than a second to look at it! They instantly moved the chains.

As far as the challenge, he was challenging the spot. Not the measurement, which I don't think you can challenge. Probably because nothing like this has ever happened before

And since they didn't do any of that, it was obviously not in question when seen from up close and straight on. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do not recall the Hawks that were on the field claiming the measurement was wrong which bolsters my point. A mountain is being made about a nothingburger simply because we only saw one angle of the measurement. It's basic geometry.

Things like this happen all the time. The refs had no doubt about it. Yes, Pete challenged the spot because you cannot challenge a measurement and it was a silly challenge. There was nothing whatsoever that was clearly going to overturn the spot and if things shook out differently, that lost timeout could've been costly. Like going for it on 4th in the 1st half, I understand the urge to do both but in a tight game you take the points and save your challenges.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

There is definitely some parallax error to the angle we have, but what bugs me is that the stick is not plumb. It is clearly leaning back. A plumb stick probably shows a gap there. I assume the referee looks at the spot where the chain attaches, but that's way too close.

Being said, I didn't see a lot of frustrated reactions from the Seahawks that were right there looking at it.

You cleared up your own doubt.

 

[SonicHawk]

I'd say it's likely mostly camera angle and it being close enough to not make a difference to the refs.

The gap you're most likely seeing is the gap between the football and the first down marker from the side. You can see the camera is slightly off being straight down. You can see the shadow the ball creates is in line with the first down marker.

 

[jlwaters1]

If it was indeed a first down there would be no gap between the ball and the stick regardless of angle. There clearly was a gap they were short by the slimmest of margins. In the end it didn't matter. But it stinks considering missed 4th down we had in the first quarter. Geno clearly moved forward but by there spot he actually lost distance.

 

[WarHawks]

Did the ball touch the stick? If not, then it isn't a first down. This isn't rocket science people.

 

[scutterhawk]

And since they didn't do any of that, it was obviously not in question when seen from up close and straight on. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do not recall the Hawks that were on the field claiming the measurement was wrong which bolsters my point. A mountain is being made about a nothingburger simply because we only saw one angle of the measurement. It's basic geometry.

Things like this happen all the time. The refs had no doubt about it. Yes, Pete challenged the spot because you cannot challenge a measurement and it was a silly challenge. There was nothing whatsoever that was clearly going to overturn the spot and if things shook out differently, that lost timeout could've been costly. Like going for it on 4th in the 1st half, I understand the urge to do both but in a tight game you take the points and save your challenges.

BALL PLACEMENT was what Pete was challenging, if the damned ball had been placed where the runner went down with it, it absolutely would have been short of the first down...All ya gotta do is rewatch 'The actual play' itself.
The Ref picked up the ball that was between his feet, hurry over towards where he placed it to the Right of his foot AND, he did NOT jog over in a straight line from where he picked the ball up.

 

[JPatera76]

BALL PLACEMENT was what Pete was challenging, if the damned ball had been placed where the runner went down with it, it absolutely would have been short of the first down...All ya gotta do is rewatch 'The actual play' itself.
The Ref picked up the ball that was between his feet, hurry over towards where he placed it to the Right of his foot AND, he did NOT jog over in a straight line from where he picked the ball up.

I mean ball placement in general sucked ass tbh.. Didnt they hose us on the geno/fant placement forward progess for fant it was a 1st but they place it just behind. Geno.. it appeared his 2nd effort was 1st.
Whats more irritating is just shortly after one of them you could see pete reach into his back pocket for the challenge flag before the camera cut away and he never did it.

 

[FattyKnuckle]

BALL PLACEMENT was what Pete was challenging, if the damned ball had been placed where the runner went down with it, it absolutely would have been short of the first down...All ya gotta do is rewatch 'The actual play' itself.
The Ref picked up the ball that was between his feet, hurry over towards where he placed it to the Right of his foot AND, he did NOT jog over in a straight line from where he picked the ball up.

BALL PLACEMENT is also called <<<<THE SPOT>>>>, ding dong. That's exactly what I said.

They said the call stands which means they did "look at the actual play itself" and didn't find definitive proof enough to move THE SPOT aka BALL PLACEMENT from where they initially put it. Theres always a margin of error, it's not like refs have a bionic eye and put a tracer on a blade of grass to show them where to put it. Two refs work in unison to find the spot where elite athletes crash together at full speed. I have no problem with their SPOTS aka BALL PLACEMENT last night. I saw nothing in either of the two big reviews that definitively changed my mind.

 

[MyrtleHawk]

Here's my question, in order to avoid situations like this that "may or may not discredit the legitimacy of the NFL brand" (ya know, like how they indefinitely suspended Calvin Ridley for gambling even though he was gambling on his own team while injured), why don't they use the sky cams to show exactly where the ball is with the first down marker? They literally have the technology to prove/disprove a blown call but are putting too much power in the refs hands

 

[Bobblehead]

Well, if you actually look at the picture their.. you can see it's the angle.. the enpty slot on top and bottom of the "0"... are not aligned as well.. and if you align the stick accordingly to the how the Zero is.. then it's pretty obvious that it does at least make it a first down.