Pete's failed challenge: Question....

[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.

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.

A third and final. So if that was is correct, he's still out.

 

[Sarlacc83]

The NFL did institute the turnover/score rule which has helped mitigate challenging decisions, too. I actually like the 3 rule because it adds an element of strategy.

 

[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.

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.

A third and final. So if that was is correct, he's still out.

Yep..I'm advocating no limit if correct. Can't get my head around anything less. Again, we are basically doing their job...and doing so without compensation.

 

[HawkHack]

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

That's pretty conclusive. I thought at the time (in real-time) that he (Wilson) had it just because he's so savvy about that sort of thing, and it appears I was right.

I don't understand how they didn't overturn that on replay. Weird. Pete had it right, but so it goes.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

I don't understand how they didn't overturn that on replay. Weird. Pete had it right, but so it goes.

I can...the Refs had a Denver bias initially! They soon realized that the Hawks were "kicking the stuffing's" out of the Broncos, so they better get out of that mode of thinking.

 

[Msfann]

In another thread someone brought up the fact that its possible that the marker was in the wrong spot and this might not have been on the side of the field with the official markers. I don't know if it means anything but you cant see anyone holding the sticks anywhere in that clip so this may have been the unofficial side.

But who knows, its another theory to talk over.

 

[AgentDib]

The spot is never very precise. You see the line judges track the ball independently along the field, then they run in to the middle after the play and often there is a discrepancy between the two that they average out. And that is just fine, over the long run it evens out as we lose an inch or two on 35 snaps and gain an inch or two on 35 snaps. The important cases are where it influences whether it was a first down or not, which is why those are currently reviewable.

If you kept the current system and then let the coaches challenge any spot almost nothing would change. Challenges are too valuable to waste on bickering over 3rd and 4.1 yards or 3rd and 4.2 yards, and even if you win every challenge you can only have at most a maximum of three.

If you let coaches challenge as much as they want and also let them challenge any spot, then half of the spots each game would be challenged by coaches whose review team noticed that it was an inch off in one direction. That would be terrible for the game.

 

[Uffda]

Look to me like Wilson placed the ball dead center of the line marker. Thought it was a first down .

 

[loafoftatupu]

It was a first down. They missed the spot SO bad. I think if it is a half yard off that the challenge should be good. The league is basically saying that they only have to get it in the ball park in a game of inches.

 

[plyka]

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.

I think the NFL has the rules like this so coaches can't use technicalities. Challenge a spot and say "hey, i won the challenge, because the ball is moved half an centimeter to the left." They want challenges for big reasons.

 

[MadSweeney]

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.

The rule is that if you're challenging the spot and looking for the 1st but it doesn't result in a first down, then you lose the challenge.

 

[MadSweeney]

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

That's pretty conclusive. I thought at the time (in real-time) that he (Wilson) had it just because he's so savvy about that sort of thing, and it appears I was right.

I don't understand how they didn't overturn that on replay. Weird. Pete had it right, but so it goes.

That pad is as official as the yellow line on broadcast, namely zero. I never saw a shot that showed the ball and the actual chain mark staff. The orange is just tossed down for reference, not as a precise marker.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

But what it did for us is waken an angry giant. Our team at that time was given no quarter and came out more angry and determined to win this fairly and honestly. Take what they dont give you and make it ours. And Our team made it OURS. Our team EARNED the win, by fantastic play.

Go Hawks.

 

[robohawk]

But what it did for us is waken an angry giant. Our team at that time was given no quarter and came out more angry and determined to win this fairly and honestly. Take what they dont give you and make it ours. And Our team made it OURS. Our team EARNED the win, by fantastic play.

Go Hawks.

this is a great point. Unlike in 2005, this team got mad and went out and dominated, rather than crying about questionable calls

I think that's the difference that Pete Carroll makes over Holmgren, who botched that 2005 game more than the refs.

This time, Pete said "ah whatever, hey guys, we're better, go TAKE this game over" whereas Holmgren cried about it like a baby.

Carroll is the MAN!