A Question RE: The 1st Challenge

[Ring 6]

Because I disagree that the ball was “indisputably” short of a first down.

If you watch the play, the marker is exactly on the 39. The play occurs right near the hash. You can indisputably see that the player is facing back toward the qb and his back just barely makes it to the 39 hash but the ball is in front of him (toward the qb). The spot should be where the ball us when forward progress ends not the players back.
It’s close but since the first down line to gain us exactly the 39 it is indisputable.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

It's one thing to miss it in real time, it's another to study a replay and conclude that the ball reached the 39, when it was so obvious it didn't. Boger's a cover-up artist, tries to hide his crew's mistakes. That gave KC a 1st down at their own 40, when they would've had to punt otherwise, and also by losing the challenge we couldn't challenge the Harry TD.

There was another call earlier that made no sense either but flew under the radar. KC ran a designed run play toward the sideline, and they called Laurence Guy for holding. How do you call a DT for holding when he's trying to get to a ball carrier?

 

[Triumph]

It's one thing to miss it in real time, it's another to study a replay and conclude that the ball reached the 39, when it was so obvious it didn't. Boger's a cover-up artist, tries to hide his crew's mistakes. That gave KC a 1st down at their own 40, when they would've had to punt otherwise, and also by losing the challenge we couldn't challenge the Harry TD.

There was another call earlier that made no sense either but flew under the radar. KC ran a designed run play toward the sideline, and they called Laurence Guy for holding. How do you call a DT for holding when he's trying to get to a ball carrier?

The video was not clear whether forward progress was gained or not.

Its another Kevin Faulk 4th down call that was too close to overturn.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

He is correct. You don't win a challenge if the principal ruling doesn't change. They didn't challenge "the spot" they challenged the spot with respect to the first down. You can't challenge just spots.

So if they challenge the spot of the ball (not that the runner made the line to gain) and the refs have to change it, that's not winning the challenge? That sounds ****ing stupid

 

[upstater1]

They absolutely should have moved the ball back. If it’s still a first down after moving it back, then the Pats still lose the challenge. It would have had to be short of a first down (or be PI) in order to win the challenge.

In the past, they've moved the ball if the spot was wrong, even if it didn't impact the down, and the team did not lose the challenge. Your version is a good suggestion for a rule change, but it's not how it's worked in the past.

Personally, I don't even think he made the first down, but that's irrelevant to your answer.

 

[slam]

It’s definitely not just the spot. In fact, I’m pretty sure you aren’t even allowed to challenge the spot unless you are claiming the spot wrongly gave or prevented a first down or safety, or wrongly prevented a TD.

The only way to win a spotting challenge is for the challenge to result in a change in one of those. Just moving the ball isn’t enough. It has to change what was ruled on the field re: down or score.

Are you prohibited a challenge of whether a punt returner steps out of bounds if it means the gain or loss of 30 yards? Honest question. It's 1st and 10 either way.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It's one thing to miss it in real time, it's another to study a replay and conclude that the ball reached the 39, when it was so obvious it didn't. Boger's a cover-up artist, tries to hide his crew's mistakes. That gave KC a 1st down at their own 40, when they would've had to punt otherwise, and also by losing the challenge we couldn't challenge the Harry TD.

Boger has nothing to do with the review; all decisions on reviews are made in NYC.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Are you prohibited a challenge of whether a punt returner steps out of bounds if it means the gain or loss of 30 yards? Honest question. It's 1st and 10 either way.

By the review rules that's not considered the challenge of a spot. It's considered a challenge of OOBness.

As I understand it, whether or not a ballcarrier (in any situation) went OOB is a separate review category from reviewing a spot and is governed by different rules. In particular, it can always be reviewed. Likewise for down-by-contact or not.

 

[neuronet]

I was surprised when he threw that flag. Given the number of times he hasn't thrown it (e.g., DPI missed last week against Sanu).

There is a lot more that goes into deciding whether to throw the flag than whether you are really certain that you will win the challenge, though, so maybe those factors entered into his thinking.

 

[venecol]

I thought it was a bad challenge but I guess it was appropriate due to the circumstances of the game. There was certainly some desperation involved.

I agree and suspect these types of challenges rarely get overturned. BB seems to like to challenge these and almost always loses.

I was noticing mis-spots throughout the game. It was driving me crazy, but what can you do. Although the camera angles we see may not be the best so there is that.

 

[PatsDeb]

They were challenging not only on whether KC got a first down, but also whether KC ran an illegal pick play and committed PI. At the stadium they showed multiple replays of Travis Kelce sticking his arse out and and bumping and impeding Gilmore from getting to the guy who eventually caught the ball (who of course secured the ball while he was going backwards, behind the line to gain). We should have won the challenge on two fronts. Instead, nuts and bolts, we got screwed.

 

[bbobbo]

from this screenshot, we can see that the first-down marker is exactly on the 39-yard line (note the marker at the top):



this screenshot shows the furthest progress watkins made:


the yellow first-down line is slightly off in this shot, and if you concentrate on the yellow line it seems like watkins barely gets past it. but watkins' backside is clearly past the 39-yard marker which is the actual first-down mark. it's hard to see exactly how far the ball got since it's tucked into his body and obscured. i think it's a close call, and since there's no indisputable evidence that he didn't make it, the call on the field has to stand--based on the television replay, at least.
.

 

[Ring 6]

The video was not clear whether forward progress was gained or not.

Its another Kevin Faulk 4th down call that was too close to overturn.

It was clear. It was close but it was clear he didn’t make it. All you have to do is look at his body in relation to the hash mark yard line and where the ball is.
It was not clear whether his back (he was facing toward the QB) broke the plane of the 39 yard line there was no way the ball did.

 

[Ring 6]

from this screenshot, we can see that the first-down marker is exactly on the 39-yard line (note the marker at the top):



this screenshot shows the furthest progress watkins made:


the yellow first-down line is slightly off in this shot, and if you concentrate on the yellow line it seems like watkins barely gets past it. but watkins' backside is clearly past the 39-yard marker which is the actual first-down mark. it's hard to see exactly how far the ball got since it's tucked into his body and obscured. i think it's a close call, and since there's no indisputable evidence that he didn't make it, the call on the field has to stand--based on the television replay, at least.
.

The ball is at his knee. There is another angle that shows the ball never passed the line to gain.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

from this screenshot, we can see that the first-down marker is exactly on the 39-yard line (note the marker at the top):



this screenshot shows the furthest progress watkins made:


the yellow first-down line is slightly off in this shot, and if you concentrate on the yellow line it seems like watkins barely gets past it. but watkins' backside is clearly past the 39-yard marker which is the actual first-down mark. it's hard to see exactly how far the ball got since it's tucked into his body and obscured. i think it's a close call, and since there's no indisputable evidence that he didn't make it, the call on the field has to stand--based on the television replay, at least.
.

Also, the camera in that second shot is not shooting straight down the 39 but is instead shooting at an angle to it, and doing so at an angle that will make the ballcarrier seem further back than he was. Which even further drives home that there was no good evidence to overturn the first down call.

 

[bbobbo]

The ball is at his knee. There is another angle that shows the ball never passed the line to gain.

the only other angle i could find was the original camera angle, and that's also not clear: