John Fox: Every indication we had was Benny Cunningham scored

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

Bears coach John Fox won a challenge he wished he would have lost in Sunday afternoon's 23-16 loss to the Packers. Fox challenged that running back Benny Cunningham was not out of bounds at the 2-yard-line with just over eight minutes left in the first half because he thought Cunningham had scored. After consulting with [more]

Continue Reading @ Josh Alper

Josh Alper wrote:

I was in my car listening to the bares broadcast. They kept going over and over how they thought he stepped out and they didn't see how it could be called a TD. I cracked up when I heard the call and listened to them moaning in the booth. They never expected THAT ruling.

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

7 years ago

After the game I was watching the bares post game show.
Bears Postgame comments- LAURENCE HOLMES said "That was the worst result of an NFL challenge, ever." While the play was being reviewed, form DE for the bares, Alex Brown was saying, "Don't challenge it".

nerdmann
Premier Member

7 years ago

We've gotten hosed plenty of times this season. Nice to have one go our way.

Definitely seemed like the conspiracy theory was on our side today, overall.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

greengold
Member

7 years ago

That was definitely a kick in the nuts for the bares. Ruling is 1st and goal at the 2, nah lets challenge that! What's the worst thing that could happen? 🤣

nerdmann
Premier Member

7 years ago

That was definitely a kick in the nuts for the bares. Ruling is 1st and goal at the 2, nah lets challenge that! What's the worst thing that could happen? 🤣

Originally Posted by: greengold

After further review...

😂

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Cheesey
Preferred Member

7 years ago

I laughed when I saw that result!
Serves them right!!!😝

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

7 years ago

Wonder how much coaches are going to challenge plays like this in the future. This is the second time this season a review resulting in a good result becoming a bad one. The other was a booth review of a scoring play and the same result.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Porforis
Veteran Member

7 years ago

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

They need to apply intelligence and conduct a proper risk-reward analysis.

What do you have to GAIN from challenging that? A chance to change it from 1st and goal at the 2, to a TD. Guaranteed points and there's no guarantee you'll get it in the endzone from the 2, but high likelihood.

What do you have to LOSE from challenging that? Losing the challenge + TO, having the ball moved back further if he actually went out earlier, or even having

Now, having the call be overturned and having it go AGAINST you is pretty rare, but whoever's watching the replays and letting Fox know whether to challenge or not HAD to have seen the ball move and if they didn't, I have no clue what they were looking at. I don't blame them for maybe thinking his foot went down OOB before the ball started coming out (which is what I initially thought), but it's clear the ball was coming out before it hit the pylon - which means, you have nothing to gain by challenging and everything to lose.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

7 years ago

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

My understanding of the challenge rule is you can only review what is specifically being challenged. IE: In this case, did he score or go out of bounds. So, ball placement. They were saying ball placement resulted in change of possession?

How were they able to switch possession? Possession wasn't what was being reviewed. Obviously, Mike McCarthy would've thrown the challenge flag if he had any clue this would be a possible outcome. We were the ones who would've challenged possession, not Chicago.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

7 years ago

#10

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

That is incorrect. Anything reviewable can be changed in a review, not just what the challenge request was for. Example, Team throws the ball on 3rd down the play is ruled a completion and the ball is spotted 1/2 yard past the LOS for a first down. The defensive team challenges the spot of the ball. During the review it is seen that ball hit the ground while not under control. The ruling on the field would be changed to an incompletion and the ball returned to the previous spot.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (40m) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (47m) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (1h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (8h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS