The Challenge - Not convinced . . .

I am not a fan of the challenge system.

I find it difficult to believe that details such as the placement of a spot (ball) can be properly relayed over the phone.

I saw in a game where the spot was challenged after the offence got a 1st down. Then, the ruling was overturned, fine. The only problem is that the ball was not moved after the spot was deemed incorrect.

If the ball was not moved that means that the ball was in the correct spot and the first down marker was in the wrong spot, but that makes no sense.

Therefore it must have been the ball that was in the incorrect spot. But if the refs cannot move the ball because they didn't know how far to move it, then the whole idea of challenging a spot seems pretty unsound. Maybe the refs just forgot to move it, which makes them incompetent.

Either way, I hate the idea of making a long-distance call and asking some dude in Toronto what he thinks happened.

I would not be so opposed to the challenge if I didn't still see problems emerging, but I still see problems.

I really think the head official at the game should at least be able to discuss the outcome of a challenge with Toronto.

It seems cheap that the head official is telling the fans something he heard over the phone. That practically makes it a rumour.

There are some calls I think Toronto screwed up this year, but overall, I'm a fan of the new system. It is much faster and has it seems like there are a lot fewer "inconclusive evidence" reviews. I think it is an improvement.

The spot of the ball will only be overturned if there is clear evidence that it was wrong. The only time I can recall a spot being overturned the replay showed clearly that the offense came up short. If the referee didn't move the ball after the challenge then that was an error on his part although if the ball was short by inches the ball may have been moved and you just didn't see them do it and couldn't tell the difference when the play resumed.

The system isn't perfect, but helps a bunch. What makes me nuts is that the super slow-mo perspective actually adds to the confusion sometimes.

Spot of the ball challenges Ive always found bizarre. I understand why teams go for them but most of the time it is in a play with a huge scrum right in the middle and there really is no accurate way to conclusively say where the ball should be especially when it comes down to a matter of inches.

Overall I like the system we have in place much better than that of a year ago theres much more successful challenges and very few errors from the toronto side of things and some calls that likely wouldve been missed even with the replays done the way they were the year before like the infamous Nik Lewis catch

the challenge system has it's pro's and con's - but is most definately improved this year over teh 2 years previous.

as for the spot of the ball, why don't we take a steop back to the roots of the game and just spot the ball where the player comes to rest (that includes sliding!) and only count TD's if the ball carrier is able to touch the ball down on the ground inside the endzone!!! :lol:

any takers?


This is difficult to explain with just words.

They probably did move the ball. However, remember that the spot of the ball is based on the forward-most point, or the "nose" of the ball. When there is a turnover on downs, the offensive team is now facing in the opposite direction. So to keep the ball's nose in the same spot, the ball is rotated 180 degrees. This has the illusion of moving the ball forward by the length of the ball, to a spot which may have given the team a first down. But the nose of the ball, now going east-to-west, is in the same spot as the nose of the ball was when it was going west-to-east, and it is only the "ass" of the ball that is now in what would have been first-down territory.

The only game I saw this year where a spot was overturned by review was a game in which the replay clearly showed they did not get the first down; but where a lunge after the player was down by contact moved the ball into first-down territory. If I remember correctly, it was against the Argos, so no one was more disappointed than I was when he didn't make it, but I knew at the time that the replay officials were absolutely right.