NFL Challenge Rule

[Tarkus]

Is there any reason why a team could not challenge a fumble with 4:50 left in the fourth quarter? There were enough time outs left and enough challenges left. Anyone know the answer to this one? Thanks.

Tarkus

[Raiders Army]

A couple good reasons would be:

The fumble is ruled unchallengeable
or
The fumble was by the other team, in which case, why would you challenge a fumble that you get?
or
The fumble was obviously a fumble, in which case, you would lose a timeout and a challenge

[Draft Dodger]

perhaps the play had been whistled dead already. once that happens, there's no way to challenge.

[Axxon]

I don't have an answer but what I REALLY don't understand how
a team can win a challenge and it count against the number of challenges they can use in a game. It makes ZERO sense. The officials screwed up ( in the super bowl on the so called fumble it was pretty obvious ) but in order to get the correct call a team has to limit its chances of getting a correct call later.

I can understand trying to limit petty challenges but if the whole purpose is to get the play called correctly what is the logic in this? At the very least once a team is out of challenges the booth should be able to review ANY plays it deems necessary for the team out of challenges. Imagine if it had been a factor sunday, what with the obviously horribly blown call.

[bbor]

If a player is originally ruled down by contact there may be no challenge if a fumble occured.

[The_herd]

I think it comes down to the flow of the game, coaches need to be smart about their challenges and not just go challenging the first questionable call they see. We all know officials are human and are going to make errors, instead of living with all of these errors, instant replay allows a team to challenge a play they deem IMPORTANT enough to challenge. Lets be honest, if we allowed coaches to challenge at any time how long do you think the game would last?

I think instant replay is doing what its intended to do, I think coaches use thier challenges at really stupid points in the game. For example the catch OOB in the super bowl on the 2pt attempt by the raiders, the reciever being pushed OOB is non-reviewable yet the raiders challenged it anyway, not to smart. You also see teams challenging 10-15 yard completions in their own territory in the 1st quarter and at other questionable points during a game. Using them in situations like that not only risks you blowing a timeout that you might need later, it burns a challenge you might need on a more important play.

My point is, I like instant replay the way it is, it adds another strategic element to the game, however, I think coaches really need keep themselves from getting caught up in all the emotion after a questionable call, look at the situation and decide whats best in the long run.

[Axxon]

Well, I agree if the challenges are being overturned but if the errors are legitimate then I don't see it. As it is, the time out penalty effectively limits the blown challenges so I see no reason to further limit the legitimate ones but maybe its just me.

[Alf]

The 2pt conversion where the receiver is pushed out of bounds is not reviewable... Why that ?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Alf
The 2pt conversion where the receiver is pushed out of bounds is not reviewable... Why that ?

Because it's a judgement call as to whether he would have come down in bounds or not.

They don't review calls that are based on the "judgement" of referees on the field, only calls that can be conclusively shown by replay if something happened or not.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Axxon
I don't have an answer but what I REALLY don't understand how
a team can win a challenge and it count against the number of challenges they can use in a game. It makes ZERO sense. The officials screwed up ( in the super bowl on the so called fumble it was pretty obvious ) but in order to get the correct call a team has to limit its chances of getting a correct call later.

I can understand trying to limit petty challenges but if the whole purpose is to get the play called correctly what is the logic in this? At the very least once a team is out of challenges the booth should be able to review ANY plays it deems necessary for the team out of challenges. Imagine if it had been a factor sunday, what with the obviously horribly blown call.

I completely agree, Axxon.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by Axxon
I don't have an answer but what I REALLY don't understand how
a team can win a challenge and it count against the number of challenges they can use in a game. It makes ZERO sense. The officials screwed up ( in the super bowl on the so called fumble it was pretty obvious ) but in order to get the correct call a team has to limit its chances of getting a correct call later.

I can understand trying to limit petty challenges but if the whole purpose is to get the play called correctly what is the logic in this? At the very least once a team is out of challenges the booth should be able to review ANY plays it deems necessary for the team out of challenges. Imagine if it had been a factor sunday, what with the obviously horribly blown call.

Tony Dungy has actually been pushing for change in which an upheld challenge does not count against the total number allotted, though the idea is that this could lead to 7 or eight challenges a game is a coach is good (or lucky).