Pete's failed challenge: Question....

[HawkWow]

On Wilson's 3rd and 6 scramble, 10:45 remaining 1st qtr, the ball is marked an entire yard short of the yardstick, resulting in a 4th and 1.

Pete challenges the spot and after review, while not a first down, the ball is moved forward about 2 feet.

The initial spot was not accurate, so in my mind, Pete won that challenge. He wasn't technically challenging whether or not it was a first down, he challenged the spot...no?

I think the challenge language needs to be modified, unless I'm missing something, because I don't see why that should have cost us a TO if the spot was in fact inaccurate.

Please refrain from.."we won, so what does it matter"? type questions or comments. It's a genuine question not necessarily specific to yesterday's game.

 

[HawkFan72]

And I still don't think they got the spot right. On the replay it looked like Wilson held the ball over the line, if not right on it.

 

[Blitzer88]

And I still don't think they got the spot right. On the replay it looked like Wilson held the ball over the line, if not right on it.

Yeah, they missed that one. Russell had it.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Yeah, it looked like the ball was pretty much right on the line from the broadcast. I thought it was a 1st.

 

[razgriz737]

Yeah, you would think if they moved the ball that means the initial spot was incorrect, which therefore means Pete was correct in his challenge.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

First, I distinctly remember other challenges like that being won, but failing to reach a first down. The ball was respotted, and the challenging team was not charged a timeout because they had won the challenge. I believe we should hear confirmation from the league that they blew that call - if they care enough to tell anyone.

Second, every replay available to the viewing public seemed to show conclusive evidence the ball was clearly past the first down line-to-go before hitting the ground. That should have been a first down. It was a terrible call, and at that point, I had the sinking feeling we were in for SBXL* II. Luckily not, because from there on out, it was decently officiated.

 

[WilsonMVP]

I have no idea how they didnt give us a first down...the ball was clearly AT or beyond the line

 

[400WattHPSHawk]

The initial spot was not accurate, so in my mind, Pete won that challenge. He wasn't technically challenging whether or not it was a first down, he challenged the spot...no?

You are absolutely correct!

Much like a sleight of hand trick. We were all looking at the first down marker and missing the obvious.

Yessir, we should not have lost a TO for that challenge.

 

[travlinhawk]

First down aside- I asked the same question. I do not believe they should have been charged the TO. The refs did move the ball (and screwed that up too). In the end I was so glad to see that our team was prepared to beat the Donkeys and the zebras.

 

[hawk45]

Yeah I got the XL* feeling as well when that went down. That challenge cost us the six, or at least a fresh set of downs to get the six.

The tight feeling in the stomach didn't entirely leave until the refs called the obvious DPI on Denver and gave us a fresh set of downs for Lynch to punch it in. In XL* they'd have missed that call as well and taken another six off the board.

 

[Cartire]

The spot of the ball can only be challenged in relationship with a first down.

Here is the current list of reviewable plays

Scoring plays
Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
Runner/receiver out of bounds
Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
Quarterback pass or fumble
Illegal forward pass
Forward or backward pass
Runner ruled not down by contact
Forward progress in regard to a first down
Touching of a kick
Other plays involving placement of the football
Whether a legal number of players is on the field at the time of the snap

The other plays involving placement of football has to do with penalties and other ball placement issue, but not the actual spot from down by contact.

This has been questioned before, and the reason had to do with the fact that they didn't want coaches challenging every ball spot because you would be surprised how often the ball isn't exactly correct.

 

[400WattHPSHawk]

The spot of the ball can only be challenged in relationship with a first down.

Here is the current list of reviewable plays

Scoring plays
Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
Runner/receiver out of bounds
Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
Quarterback pass or fumble
Illegal forward pass
Forward or backward pass
Runner ruled not down by contact
Forward progress in regard to a first down
Touching of a kick
Other plays involving placement of the football
Whether a legal number of players is on the field at the time of the snap

The other plays involving placement of football has to do with penalties and other ball placement issue, but not the actual spot from down by contact.

Upon review, The OP's question/statement is over turned, the original call stands...

HawkWow will be charged a post. :lol:

 

[HawkWow]

If "the spot of the ball can only be challenged in relationship with a first down", thanks for the answer Cartire.

This rule, I think, requires tweaking. What if knowing we did not get the 1st down, our coaches merely want the measurement because they will go for it on 4th and inches but not 4th and 1? They deserve to be penalized a TO for correcting the officials bad spot, before deciding our next play?

I think we have all put the "reviews take too much time" thing to rest. Most, if not all, want a correct call regardless of time spent getting it. With that, I think the whole challenge process needs retooling.

As for RW and the spot, I thought he was there and so did RW (he gestures first down as he sees the ref spot the ball short, as though asking him WTH?). I couldn't really tell if the ball hit the sideline or not when it landed. So maybe there's that, but in moving the ball forward, they agreed with Pete...and not the ref that spotted the ball.

 

[HawkWow]

The spot of the ball can only be challenged in relationship with a first down.

Here is the current list of reviewable plays

Scoring plays
Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
Runner/receiver out of bounds
Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
Quarterback pass or fumble
Illegal forward pass
Forward or backward pass
Runner ruled not down by contact
Forward progress in regard to a first down
Touching of a kick
Other plays involving placement of the football
Whether a legal number of players is on the field at the time of the snap

The other plays involving placement of football has to do with penalties and other ball placement issue, but not the actual spot from down by contact.

Upon review, The OP's question/statement is over turned, the original call stands...

HawkWow will be charged a post. :lol:

I was actually asking for someone else...honest Judge! ; )

Great answer from Cartire...learned something new (and dis-satisfying) here.

 

[253hawk]

Bad, bad call. They originally spotted it a full yard short. Nice hands to the face, too (look at Wilson's head turn.)

 

[DavidSeven]

Terrible call and cost us a TD drive IMO. Might have cost Wilson a SB MVP too, because I don't think Denver could stop our offense. Our own dominant D is the only thing that slowed Wilson down.

 

[Cartire]

Here's what bothered me about it. After respotting the ball, which obviously was right on the line, they should have called the chains out for a measurement. That was a bad mistake not to do that.

My issue with the challenge system is the amount of challenges. I understand limiting them of you get them wrong. But if all your challenges are correct, then you shouldn't be penalized a challenge. The refs screwed up, not the coach.

 

[HawkWow]

The challenge gave me time to get crazy with the 'how short is too long for us NOT to go for it"?

Certainly taking the 3 is always the wise play in that scenario, but you'd sure like to think our line could get us a foot, too. I didn't have that confidence.

With our D pretty well returning in tact, I sincerely hope the O will be getting the bulk of attention this off season. The line in particular. Even our best...Okung and Unger are suspect. Not suggesting we attempt to replace either, but damn. It would take *Walt 3 years to have as many holds as Okung had yesterday and Unger...unsure how he qualified for the PB.

*Walt is just an example. Yes I know they don't grow Walts on trees. Isn't it sad that we can't write something without the need to add asterisks and stuff like this, knowing there's some asshat that will ask "what...do you think Walts grown on trees"? LOL.

 

[HawkWow]

Here's what bothered me about it. After respotting the ball, which obviously was right on the line, they should have called the chains out for a measurement. That was a bad mistake not to do that.

My issue with the challenge system is the amount of challenges. I understand limiting them of you get them wrong. But if all your challenges are correct, then you shouldn't be penalized a challenge. The refs screwed up, not the coach.

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve, Cartire. We get penalized for correcting their mistakes? It should be more like..." Hey, you helped us out of a potentially embarrassing, game changing, blown call. For that you get an extra challenge". Not the other way around which is currently "yeah, yeah, you were right..but guess what? It's going to cost you, anyway". That has to get worked out, IMO.

 

[JGreen79]

Here's what bothered me about it. After respotting the ball, which obviously was right on the line, they should have called the chains out for a measurement. That was a bad mistake not to do that.

My issue with the challenge system is the amount of challenges. I understand limiting them of you get them wrong. But if all your challenges are correct, then you shouldn't be penalized a challenge. The refs screwed up, not the coach.

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve, Cartire. We get penalized for correcting their mistakes? It should be more like..." Hey, you helped us out of a potentially embarrassing, game changing, blown call. For that you get an extra challenge". Not the other way around which is currently "yeah, yeah, you were right..but guess what? It's going to cost you, anyway". That has to get worked out, IMO.

Maybe I'm not quite understanding you here, but isn't that how it is currently? If a coach wins both challenges he receives a third.