The red flag in your pocket is for challenging close plays that may affect the outcome of the game, like a bad spot on a fourth down or a fumble where the runner may have been down by contact. To use the flag, simply pull it out of your pocket with your throwing hand, reach back, and toss it on to the field of play, where an official can see it, before the ball is snapped on the next play.

Attention DolfanMike: We won.

He was spot on on his challenges today, the ones he thought about but didn't challenge he was right.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was spot on on his challenges today, the ones
> he thought about but didn't challenge he was
> right.


I'm not so sure about that. The 4th down spot was horrible, we had the RB stopped well before the LOS. That play should have been challenged. We would have won it.

As for the Ronnie Brown, I don't know about that. From all the angles I could see, it was inconclusive. But I was at a bar and the replays the TV showed. But it was very, very close and on a momentum changer like that, where it is hard to see, you HAVE to challenge if you can.

I dont think they would of changed that spot, that challenge is very hard to win.

agreed, 100% should have challenged that play. the replay showed he lost yardage and at the time it was the biggest play in the game. you gotta challenge that

It does not matter how easy it is to win a certain play, challenge is a dice roll and the way momentum was rolling so hard against us I think he was obligated to throw that challenge. Even if he did not win it it would have given the defense a chance to rest. And the amount of time they spent playing in that second half it would have been good.

You talking about the Brown fumble? Clearly a fumble, and I still dont think they would of changed that spot on the 4th down run.

Miami Reppa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does not matter how easy it is to win a certain
> play, challenge is a dice roll and the way
> momentum was rolling so hard against us I think he
> was obligated to throw that challenge. Even if he
> did not win it it would have given the defense a
> chance to rest. And the amount of time they spent
> playing in that second half it would have been
> good.


Exactly. We ended the game with a timeout. Not like we can bank that for next game.

That 4th down should have absolutely been challenged. We would have won that easily.

As for the fumble, I saw no TV replays that showed both Brown's knees and the fumble. Maybe one didn't exist, but if it did, better to look and be wrong than do nothing at all.

Don't get me wrong. I've extremely pleased with the way this team played. We were tough and prepared. They knew what our offense was going to do, and yet we still controlled the game through TOP. The defense confused a QB who has seen it all. That tells me that Monday thru Saturday, this coaching staff has its stuff together.

But one of these days, the gameday coaching is going to kill up.

Hind-site's 20-20, if we challenge the 4th down spot and lose (which I think we would of), we then have no timeouts left, if Minny goes down and scores after that challenge, we get the ball back losing with no TO's left with like 60 secs left, this board is lit up with "hang Sparano by his balls threads". And Browns fumble was clearly...CLEARLY a fumble.

I agree that the spot on the 4th down was a HORRIBLE SPOT, and CLEARLY ON EVERY REPLAY was stopped, and should have been challenged.

Other than that the Ronnie fumble was a fumble and not enough evidence to overturn it.

We would have lost the 4th down challenge. On the replay, you lose sight of the runner as he hits the line of scrimmage. There was no visual evidence that the spot was bad. There was no way to prove where his surge ended. Sparano was wise to not challenge it.

Yeah but he needed to break the line, which clearly he didnt. In the end we won so ?

TheFutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Attention DolfanMike: We won.


RESPONSE: ATTENTION FUTT: What do you do when we lose because of a bad coaching decision? What do you say then?

Mia1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah but he needed to break the line, which
> clearly he didnt. In the end we won so ?

You are talking about a total of 6 inches on the field. In order to overturn the call, they need indisputable visual evidence that the call on the field was wrong. When the runner disappeared into the line, there was no way of knowing for sure fi the spot was good or bad. It sure looked like a bad spot. But, there was definitely not enough evidence to overturn it. Sparano and the staff made the right decision. It's not Sparano's call. He counts on the guys in the booth to tell him what the replay showed. And the replay was not clear, so you can't risk the timeout.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We would have lost the 4th down challenge. On the
> replay, you lose sight of the runner as he hits
> the line of scrimmage. There was no visual
> evidence that the spot was bad. There was no way
> to prove where his surge ended. Sparano was wise
> to not challenge it.


NO DOUBT WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE CHALLENGE!!! I agree, there's no doubt he didn't make the LOS, let alone get past it...BUT there was NO evidence to show it and if you've EVER watched the NFL, you know that there has to be irrefutable evident to overturn a call....even more so when you're talking about a spot!

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolfanmark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We would have lost the 4th down challenge. On
> the
> > replay, you lose sight of the runner as he hits
> > the line of scrimmage. There was no visual
> > evidence that the spot was bad. There was no
> way
> > to prove where his surge ended. Sparano was
> wise
> > to not challenge it.
>
>
> NO DOUBT WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE CHALLENGE!!! I
> agree, there's no doubt he didn't make the LOS,
> let alone get past it...BUT there was NO evidence
> to show it and if you've EVER watched the NFL, you
> know that there has to be irrefutable evident to
> overturn a call....even more so when you're
> talking about a spot!


I agree that there was a good chance we lose the challenge. However, we all agree that he clearly didn't get the 1st down so maybe they would have changed it. Regardless Sparano and company were absolute morons for not review the play. The bottom line was that if the correct call would have been made, then the game would have been won at that moment. Over the course of the last few years, I must say that I am not impressed with Sparano as a game management coach. He is too "inconsistent". I am happy we won, but at that very moment I was absolutely pissed.

Not sure i'm following your logic Twilley, you agree we would of probably lost the challenge but say Sparano's an idiot for not blowing our final timeout? If Minny went down and scored we might of needed that dontcha think?

Jonathan Twilley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GBOFinFan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > dolfanmark Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > We would have lost the 4th down challenge. On
> > the
> > > replay, you lose sight of the runner as he
> hits
> > > the line of scrimmage. There was no visual
> > > evidence that the spot was bad. There was no
> > way
> > > to prove where his surge ended. Sparano was
> > wise
> > > to not challenge it.
> >
> >
> > NO DOUBT WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE CHALLENGE!!! I
> > agree, there's no doubt he didn't make the LOS,
> > let alone get past it...BUT there was NO
> evidence
> > to show it and if you've EVER watched the NFL,
> you
> > know that there has to be irrefutable evident
> to
> > overturn a call....even more so when you're
> > talking about a spot!
>
>
> I agree that there was a good chance we lose the
> challenge. However, we all agree that he clearly
> didn't get the 1st down so maybe they would have
> changed it. Regardless Sparano and company were
> absolute morons for not review the play. The
> bottom line was that if the correct call would
> have been made, then the game would have been won
> at that moment. Over the course of the last few
> years, I must say that I am not impressed with
> Sparano as a game management coach. He is too
> "inconsistent". I am happy we won, but at that
> very moment I was absolutely pissed.


I completely agree about the Sparano's game management and I've been vocal about it in the past...but in this case, there's now way that that play's overturned. Once the ball is lost in the crowd, common sense tells you that judging by the location of his body he doesn't get the ball to where they marked it, BUT the refs can't use common sense. They are bound to the rules which say "there has to be irrefutable video evidence to overturn". Clearly there wasn't in this case.

The problem here was that the line judge made the wrong call initially. No challenge was going to overturn that. Maybe a challenge gives your D a longer rest but as I saw it, our D was playing well. I wouldn't have challenged it either.

"RESPONSE: ATTENTION FUTT: What do you do when we lose because of a bad coaching decision? What do you say then?"

I don't know. You want to play this hypothetical "IF" game, and I'm not biting.

Talk to me when we lose and I'll have a better response for you, but for today, we're 2-0.

Yeah no s..t lets rejoice in the winning streak fellas seriously can we stop the complaining and drink the brewskieS?

We would probably have lost both challenges, especially the Brown fumble. Sparano made the right call(s).

>
>
> I completely agree about the Sparano's game
> management and I've been vocal about it in the
> past...but in this case, there's now way that that
> play's overturned. Once the ball is lost in the
> crowd, common sense tells you that judging by the
> location of his body he doesn't get the ball to
> where they marked it, BUT the refs can't use
> common sense. They are bound to the rules which
> say "there has to be irrefutable video evidence to
> overturn". Clearly there wasn't in this case.
>
> The problem here was that the line judge made the
> wrong call initially. No challenge was going to
> overturn that. Maybe a challenge gives your D a
> longer rest but as I saw it, our D was playing
> well. I wouldn't have challenged it either.

I am saying that if you do call for the review and they happen to see something they feel is irrefutable then you likely win the game on that call. I would have thrown the red flag and given it a shot. Our view was not conclusive although we could tell he most likely didn't make it. You don't know what the officials might see from their perspective. I have seen them time and again make calls that I didn't expect or think was right. Nonetheless, you have a chance to win at that very moment with a review. That alone gives you a better likelyhood to win than does saving that timeout.

Jonathan Twilley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am saying that if you do call for the review and
> they happen to see something they feel is
> irrefutable then you likely win the game on that
> call. I would have thrown the red flag and given
> it a shot. Our view was not conclusive although
> we could tell he most likely didn't make it. You
> don't know what the officials might see from their
> perspective. I have seen them time and again make
> calls that I didn't expect or think was right.
> Nonetheless, you have a chance to win at that very
> moment with a review. That alone gives you a
> better likelyhood to win than does saving that
> timeout.

That is my point. If we win that challenge, then game over. Period. You take that chance. We all agree it wasn't a first down, which means there is some chance that the officials would see something - perhaps a camera angle we didn't see, or perhaps a slo-mo actually showing the ball never made it across the 30 yard line.

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are talking about a total of 6 inches on the
> field. In order to overturn the call, they need
> indisputable visual evidence that the call on the
> field was wrong.

It isn't that hard since the LOS was the 30 yard line. Marked sideline to sideline. He didn't even get close to the yard marker. It was a very poor spot and had a very good chance of getting overturned.