challenging plays (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

Yesterday, Indy challenged two plays. One was upheld, the other was reversed. REgardless of the outcome of the plays, neither play, IMO, was in a critical point to warrant risking either a loss of a timeout, or the ability to challenge at a later point.

Scenario 1:

3-10-CHI14 (7:45) (No Huddle, Shotgun) P.Manning pass short left to D.Clark pushed ob at CHI 6 for 8 yards (R.Manning). Play Challenged by IND and Upheld. (Timeout #1 by IND.)

so - 3rd down, already in FG range, midway through 3rd quarter, up by two. Indy thinks they caught the bears in a late substitution - trying to get a first down by penalty. They didn't.Scenario 2:

2-13-IND29 37) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete short right to M.Harrison. Play Challenged by IND and REVERSED. (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short right to M.Harrison ran ob at IND 40 for 11 yards.

OK - indy won the challenge. Instead of 3rd and 13, it becomes 3rd and 2. But still - if the challenge goes against them, they would have squandered two TO's in the 2nd half (which could have been meaningful), and would have been left with a 3-13 - a down and distance I'm pretty sure Manning could convert. Indy punted on this posession anyhow, so the challenge earned them nothing.________________________________________

I believe that challenges should be reserved for critical, game changing situations, and not squandered for a measily 5 yard penalty, or a sideline pass that doesn't even net a first down. In close games, TO's can be crucial - I simply don't think it's worth risking them. More importantly, challenges are only granted at two per game - you've gotta pick the moments for when to use them wisely.

I've seen other coaches do this as well - drives me nuts. They seem to get so nuts at a given call that they challenge the play purely out of hubris, I think. They are blinded to the impact that overturning a play can have.

Other than that, Indy played a great game. It just irks me to see poor strategy emplyed with regards to challenges - a pet peeve of mine, if you will. anybody else frustruated with the challenges here, or do you think they were justified?

edited title to be more descriptive

 

[chook]

Dungy probably would have called a timeout on the first one anyway, to decide whether or not it was worth it going for it on 4th & 2 from the Chicago 6.

The Colts had just driven down the field for 7 1/2 minutes (their longest of the game) and although only up by 2 points at the time, it was becoming clear to most that the Colts were beginning to move the ball a lot easier against the tiring Bears D, and may have been able to score a TD at the time.

There was a 12th man on the field right up to the snap, so why not take a chance at catching him on replay and keeping the drive alive, while at the same time getting the time to work out if it was worth going for it on 4th down if it was upheld?

 

[JohnDoe]

The thing about the first challenge is that there was not a good TV angle to determine if the Bear player had gotten off of the field in time. I think that Indy had a habit of doing a quick snap in these types of situations all year (I think they did it in the NE game, but I am not sure). If there had been a good camera angle that showed the sideline we would know if the player had gotten off of the field in time.

I don't think the second challenge was a bad one. 3rd and 2 is a lot more manageable than 3rd and 13. It was a close play and IMO the gamble was worth it.

 

[bryhamm]

I think they should change the rule so that there is unlimited challenges, but if you challenge and are wrong it is a penalty (10 yds?). Thus coaches might not be so quick to challenge something so minor, or they better be damn sure that are correct before challenging.

 

[B Maverick]

The thing about the first challenge is that there was not a good TV angle to determine if the Bear player had gotten off of the field in time. I think that Indy had a habit of doing a quick snap in these types of situations all year (I think they did it in the NE game, but I am not sure). If there had been a good camera angle that showed the sideline we would know if the player had gotten off of the field in time.I don't think the second challenge was a bad one. 3rd and 2 is a lot more manageable than 3rd and 13. It was a close play and IMO the gamble was worth it.

The first one came down to camera angles. the colts had caught several calls quick snapping during defensive subs. A good camera angle would have shown whether the bear got off or not. I am sure it was close enough to make the call.The 2nd challenge was more then just a change of 11 yards. It was harrison and the confidence they have in him getting his feet in bounds. A great play, a challenge, both create more momentum to build on, confidence by the offense vs the bears D. It was part mental to keep his team going with high confidence in each other. Good challenge IMO.

 

[Yitbos69]

How Indy won the game with such poor decisions made by the head coach is unreal.

 

[bryhamm]

How Indy won the game with such poor decisions made by the head coach is unreal.

Guess they were that much better talent-wise.

 

[Yitbos69]

How Indy won the game with such poor decisions made by the head coach is unreal.

Guess they were that much better talent-wise.

No way...Talent has nothing to do with it!

 

[stevegamer]

2nd challenge made a ton of sense - huge difference in 3rd & 2 and 3rd & 11 - plus it's Harrison so you assume if he says the feet got down that he got them down - which he did again. I'd probably make that challenge without even going upstairs to a replay given his track record with getting feet in.

1st one was probably a case where the guy upstairs saw something that there wasn't a good angle on - because the coaching box had a view there was no angle for.

Probably would be good to put a camera or 2 up high dedicated for these kinds of plays where a top down shot would be useful. One at each end zone at top of stadium - an overhead that sees the whole field ?

 

[moleculo]

2nd challenge made a ton of sense - huge difference in 3rd & 2 and 3rd & 11 - plus it's Harrison so you assume if he says the feet got down that he got them down - which he did again. I'd probably make that challenge without even going upstairs to a replay given his track record with getting feet in.1st one was probably a case where the guy upstairs saw something that there wasn't a good angle on - because the coaching box had a view there was no angle for. Probably would be good to put a camera or 2 up high dedicated for these kinds of plays where a top down shot would be useful. One at each end zone at top of stadium - an overhead that sees the whole field ?

I believed at the time, and I believe today, that it simply isn't worth the risk to challenge an 8 yard completion, which will leave you short of the first down, especially between the 20's. 3rd & 11 - so what? The Colts were up by 5 at the time, and Chicago hadn't really done anything offensively in quite a while anyhow. I simply think that there is limited upside to that challenge.as for camera angles, perhaps the coaches figured that for the SB, they would have cameras all over the field and nothing could possibly get missed? That would have been my assumption. I can understand how a first down there could have been huge, but it's way to marginal of a call to make and to trust that a camera got a glimpse of the action.I know I'm nit-picking at strategy here, and if I'm the only one who thinks that, I'll let it go. Stratgic use of challenges is a pet peeve of mine, particularly because they are limited.