John Fox, - Challenges spot, loses possession.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

Funniest challenge ever.

 

 

The Bears marched down the field midway through the second quarter on a drive that seemed destined to reach the end zone. Quarterback Mitch Trubisky executed a perfect screen pass to running back Benny Cunningham that advanced the ball to the 2-yard line and converted third and 13. But coach John Fox felt Cunningham had reached the end zone by extending the ball to reach the pylon, so the challenge flag was thrown. But the challenge backfired in one of the flukiest reviews in recent memory. The officials decided that Cunningham lost possession as he extended the ball toward the pylon, which meant the contact between ball and pylon triggered a touchback. Instead of first and goal at the 2-yard line — or a touchdown — the Bears sabotaged themselves with a touchback that gave the ball to the Packers, who led 10-3.

 

[Gepetto 977]

Interesting. I didn't know replay could find in favor of the other team and reverse the call on the field. I thought the coach that challenges says what he is specifically challenging and if it's not seen on review it would just stay what was called on the field. I learned something today.

[TommyGavin 788]

Same happened to NYJ vs NE minus the coaches challenge

[NorthernVike 2,079]

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Im a Packer fan and even I think its a dumb rule.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Yeah that was hilarious and awesome. He was yelling at the refs all day long

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I was in Chicago today at the airport watching it. Fox sucks. He whines about dumb stuff all the time. He challenged the play that it was a TD and not out of bounds. They have to look at all aspects of the play through a TD under that challenge.

 

I agree that it is a dumb rule

[nobody 2,031]

I read somewhere that in olden times, it was a touchback for the defe se if a team threw a pass through the endzone.

 

It's a stupid rule. Why not just spot the ball where the fumble occurred?

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Neck and neck with Jim Schwartz trying to challenge a play that was subject to automatic review, resulting in the review being cancelled altogether and the (incorrect) call standing for a 70+ yd TD.

[Thornton Melon 542]

Stupidest rule in sports, hands down. No logic to it whatsoever.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

Not sure why it is so stupid? If you want to sell out with one hand and reach for a TD and lose the ball then what is your problem? It was a fumble.

 

Never understood why so many guys sell out with one arm. Especially on a long run or catch that would put them 1st and goal anyway. It is just selfish in wanting the TD.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I think it should be treated as one would treat a fumble out of bounds. The minute they showed the replay and you could see the ball out of his hands, I knew they were going to do this. Silly rule IMO.

[edjr 5,545]

Not sure why it is so stupid? If you want to sell out with one hand and reach for a TD and lose the ball then what is your problem? It was a fumble.

 

Never understood why so many guys sell out with one arm. Especially on a long run or catch that would put them 1st and goal anyway. It is just selfish in wanting the TD.

 

never understood? really?

[vuduchile 1,940]

Dumb rule.

 

Supposedly created to dissuade offensive players from fumbling forward into the end zone where their teammates could recover it for a TD.

[vuduchile 1,940]

Not sure why it is so stupid? If you want to sell out with one hand and reach for a TD and lose the ball then what is your problem? It was a fumble.

 

Never understood why so many guys sell out with one arm. Especially on a long run or catch that would put them 1st and goal anyway. It is just selfish in wanting the TD.

Because 6 pts is worth more than 4 tries from the 1.

[parrot 789]

Dumb rule.

 

Supposedly created to dissuade offensive players from fumbling forward into the end zone where their teammates could recover it for a TD.

 

Which is illegal under a completely different rule, correct?

[vuduchile 1,940]

 

Which is illegal under a completely different rule, correct?

Sorta. If an offensive player fumbles into the attacked end zone, it is a TD if recovered by the O and a touchback if recovered by the D.

 

Except on 4th down. Then the ball is turned over on downs at the spot of the fumble.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Which is illegal under a completely different rule, correct?

 

Exactly. Can't advance a fumble. Doesn't result in overturning possession - unless a failure to reach the line of gain on 4th down.

 

Dumb rule. We're all in agreement here, so all that has to happen is for the NFL to get its head out of its ass. But...Goodell. So no.

[parrot 789]

Sorta. If an offensive player fumbles into the attacked end zone, it is a TD if recovered by the O and a touchback if recovered by the D.

 

Except on 4th down. Then the ball is turned over on downs at the spot of the fumble.

 

Okay, right. I was thinking you couldn't fumble a ball forward into the endzone and have the offense recover, but yeah you can. I'm thinking of the last two minutes of the half, where you can't fumble forward at all.

[Thornton Melon 542]

Not sure why it is so stupid? If you want to sell out with one hand and reach for a TD and lose the ball then what is your problem? It was a fumble.

 

Never understood why so many guys sell out with one arm. Especially on a long run or catch that would put them 1st and goal anyway. It is just selfish in wanting the TD.

 

I don't think you understand what the stupid part is here. It's not the fact that it's a fumble.

[nobody 2,031]

Not sure why it is so stupid? If you want to sell out with one hand and reach for a TD and lose the ball then what is your problem? It was a fumble.

 

Never understood why so many guys sell out with one arm. Especially on a long run or catch that would put them 1st and goal anyway. It is just selfish in wanting the TD.

 

 

It's dumb because any other time a player fumbles out of bounds, it doesn't result in a loss of possession, but for some reason if you get alllll the way down to the end zone, and you fumble the ball reaching for the pylon, that's somehow a travesty that can't be tolerated, and the result is automatic loss of possession... oh and they get 20 yards of field position making it the single most costly play in sports. and for what? Because the guy is trying to reach for the end zone? Why is an exciting play like that being discouraged? Why wouldn't you just give the ball to the offense where the fumble occurred like they do in every other similar instance?

 

So in summary it's dumb because:

1. It's inconsistent with rules covering similar situations (ie, fumbling forward on 4th down, fumbling out of bounds in other parts of the field)

2. It's waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too harsh.

3. It discourages payers from trying to dive for the pylon which is one of the most exciting plays in the sport. Trying for extra yards is not discouraged anywhere else in the field so harshly

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

 

It's dumb because any other time a player fumbles out of bounds, it doesn't result in a loss of possession, but for some reason if you get alllll the way down to the end zone, and you fumble the ball reaching for the pylon, that's somehow a travesty that can't be tolerated, and the result is automatic loss of possession... oh and they get 20 yards of field position making it the single most costly play in sports. and for what? Because the guy is trying to reach for the end zone? Why is an exciting play like that being discouraged? Why wouldn't you just give the ball to the offense where the fumble occurred like they do in every other similar instance?

 

So in summary it's dumb because:

1. It's inconsistent with rules covering similar situations (ie, fumbling forward on 4th down, fumbling out of bounds in other parts of the field)

2. It's waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too harsh.

3. It discourages payers from trying to dive for the pylon which is one of the most exciting plays in the sport. Trying for extra yards is not discouraged anywhere else in the field so harshly

I guess it is sorta similar to a fumble out of your own end zone being a safety.

 

But yeah. This rule should change. Spot it at the one.

[listen2me 23 1,529]

If you fumble it through the endzone it is a safety. Still not sure why is it blasphemy. Dont hold it like a loaf of bread.

[Gepetto 977]

I think it should be treated as one would treat a fumble out of bounds. The minute they showed the replay and you could see the ball out of his hands, I knew they were going to do this. Silly rule IMO.

 

This is the solution. The rule should be changed to spot the ball where the fumble occurred and unless it was 4th and goal, the offense keeps the ball.

[Thornton Melon 542]

If you fumble it through the endzone it is a safety. Still not sure why is it blasphemy. Dont hold it like a loaf of bread.

 

If you fumble it thru your own end zone, it's a safety. We're talking about fumbling it thru your opponent's end zone. It's not a safety, it's a touchback; and it's stupid.