Is the price for challenging a call too high? (1 Viewer)

[eagles2007]

I think losing a timeout and one of your two challenges is a bit excessive. You already have to be judicious in deciding when to challenge - you only get 2, 3 if you get the first 2 right ... So penalizing a team a timeout, that seems like piling on.

We want there to be challenges because we want the call to be right.

Right?

 

[QuizGuy66]

since Marvin Lewis always wastes his challenges (and almost as often wastes time outs w/o a challenge) I wholeheartedly agree.

-QG

 

[stevegamer]

I think losing a timeout and one of your two challenges is a bit excessive. You already have to be judicious in deciding when to challenge - you only get 2, 3 if you get the first 2 right ... So penalizing a team a timeout, that seems like piling on. We want there to be challenges because we want the call to be right. Right?

I think that the penalty is there because if you don't have them lose the timeout, they got the "review timeout" for free. There are times where if I'm a coach, and I don't lose a timeout - I might challenge a call just to get a "free" timeout - I expect to need the timeouts more than the challenges.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I have never understood the part of the rule where, if you use a challenge...and even if you win the challenge, they take away a future challenge. If you get it right, there should not be any negatives.

 

[nysfl2]

I have never understood the part of the rule where, if you use a challenge...and even if you win the challenge, they take away a future challenge. If you get it right, there should not be any negatives.

I think that's a good rule. It stops coaches from constantly challenging the spot on a second down play that is close to the first down line, hoping to get a first down out of it. Even if they are right, it would slow down the game too much. Replay is only intended to fix those officiating mistakes that have a major impact on the game, so the limited number forces coaches to use them judiciously.