The McCarthy NON Challenge

No doubt.

If they replayed the slow motion, close up we stood a chance. I think Quarless did get control with his knee about an inch above the ground, but I don't have faith that the refs would have seen it that way. 

Seemed obvious to me

It was 3rd down and that catch would have given them a 1st. With Wallace at QB, I don't know why he didn't challenge it. What did he have to lose there...

didn't like it at all. Looked like he secured the ball cleanly and still had 2 feet in bounds before his knee toucehd the ground

I could not tell if Quarles knee was down out of bounce when he gained control of the ball. Not sure if the ref could of either.

Clear catch.....

I probably would have challenged it simply b/c you're not moving the ball much with Wallace. Risk/reward seemed worth it.

But I don't think it was a slam dunk to be reversed. It should have been an easy catch by Quarrels…brutal bobble to even make that questionable.

Unacceptable to not challenge.. With all the booth reviews, you are really only risking s TO.

Well, you're not just risking the TOs. The bigger risk is you lose a challenge that you may need in the 2nd half.

I would have challenged it, but it was a tough call. But let's not forget that the ensuing punt was perfectly executed -- downed inside the five yard line.

The defense just has to hold there and give GB another crack at a short field before the end of the half. What can't happen is allowing a 95 yard drive to end the half to the Bears' back-up QB.

I didn't think it was a tough call at all.  MM should have thrown the challenge flag there.  

RR - I understand the risk of losing the opp to challenge a 3rd time. That's why I mentioned all the booth reviews in today's game.. Its rare that you need 2 in 2nd half.. Most big plays are auto reviewed now

MM shoulda challenged it, but by no means did this one play cost us the game.

   It was worth a shot at that point in the game. Didn't lose the game but would've put them in FG range.

Not enough there to overturn the call on the field.

Exactly, it probably was worth challenging even under the old challenge rules, but with the auto-replays on scores and turnovers there's virtually no downside.

It was a big play in the game.   Just like the non-call in the endzone where McCown should have been called for intentional grounding (safety).

Just seems like that's the way these games go versus Chicago.   They are always close and a play or two here and there basically decides the game.   Even without Rodgers and a dreadful performance by the D the Packers had a real chance to win but couldn't stop them when it mattered

Not enough there to overturn the call on the field.

How do you know unless you try. Let's remember we're dealing with refs who are doddering fossils and manage banks during the week, I've seen them screw-up a challenge a time or fifty.

Great Post, Joe.

There was not much down side to  challenging the call. At worst the Packers would of lost a time out late in the second period.  

I think MM and the Packers coaching staff was badly  shaken by Rodgers loss.

I suspect MM saw the same thing I did- Quarless gaining control while out of bounds. I think you should only challenge if the odds are at least even of winning it, and that one wasn't close to that. Even if you think he caught the ball in bounds there wasn't enough there to overturn it.

I do think the play was close enough that had it been ruled a catch on the field they likely wouldn't have overturned it either.

Disagree.

I think it was 50-50 the refs overturn it, simply because the refs are reluctant to do so unless they clearly screwed up. And it depends on which replays are shown. The super-slo-mo showed he caught the ball, but that replay came later. I think in this case they would have found a blade of grass to say he was down. But if anything, MM should have challenged it to give his D a rest.

Seriously, does anyone believe that call would have been overturned? Indisputable evidence? By the time he [re]gained control the knee looked down OOB, or not.

Michiganjoe, did you watch the Texans/Colts game on Sunday night?  There were 2 overturned calls that were much more borderline than the play last night.  McCarthy has made far worse challenges than that play.

With these "officials" anything is possible.

Nothing to lose to try unless MM has a clause in his contract that he gets a bonus for every TO he takes with him to the locker room. 

I don't believe it would have been overturned. Tough call that could have gone either way.

Seriously, it looked like he gained clear control before anything went out of bounds.  I believe it would have been overturned.  It looked obvious to me at the time. 

It looked obvious to me that the knee was down when he regained control.

I agree it was close enough and the opportunities were so few for the offense that MM should have challenged.

When I said "tough call" I meant it's not at all clear if they would have actually overturned it. They may have, but it wouldn't have surprised me if it they kept the ruling on the field.

The criticism of MM here is distracting from the real issues which were:

1) Quarrels needs to make that catch cleanly. There was absolutely no reason for that to be bobbled

2) The defense needs to do its job when they have a back-up QB pinned inside the five. Get a three and out and you're back in business at the end of the half in great field position.

Passing twice on 2nd and goal from 5 w/ Wallace is also inexcusable.  Sure fooled them, Mike.

I think in any other game, McCarthy would have challenged this. Given the general disarray of the offense from losing Rodgers (NO BACK-UP PLAN), he got conservative. That said, IMO it doesn't get over-turned. I didn't see the indisputable evidence either. 

What impressed me was Lacy's productivity when they were stacking the box,  a tribute to our line and his instincts. he got three yards even when it looked stopped up. Near the goal and at the 40 with third and three, we should've rode that horse.

I think it got harder to ride that horse when Lang went out. Barclay was brutal inside and nothing new was happening with Newhouse. At one point, it looked like Newhouse shrugged when Wallace was sacked again. I think if Lang can't go this week things get even tougher for us. We've kind of glossed over the loss of Lang, but it could be another big blow to our only weapon: the running game.

I didn't tape the game, but one replay definitely left the impression the knee was on the grass and the ball still moving. 

Worth tossing the flag taking a look...

Quarless had already made his cut toward the sideline while Wallace was dodging the rushers. Then Wallace breaks free, slides left and pumps it, then he throws a weak-armed toss to Quarless... who was already falling down waiting for the slow train to arrive. The timing was way off, not unlike the difference between a fastball and an off- speed pitch. Quarless still should secure it, but I understand how the timing messed him up.

He was out of real estate and Wallace was late due to the pass rush

From the back-side camera shot you can see possession happens a nanosecond before his knee touches down. Tough one to overturn, but there was video proof the refs could see and use to make the call. Who knows what happens, but its worth a timeout just for the momentum alone

MM is used to not worrying about an individual play because Rodgers and the offense will just make another one. Now MM has to re-train his value system and place a higher value on field position and momentum with Wallace under center.

GB is going to have to kick and scratch for everything on offense going forward and I'm confident they will adjust.