Barnwell: Fox makes worst challenge in the history of the NFL replay system.

[BroncoWave]

Pretty hard to argue this. I can't fathom what Fox was thinking with that challenge.

From Bill Barnwell's weekly "Thank You for Not Coaching" column. (A really good column IMO)


1. John Fox produces one of the worst challenges of the year. It was jaw-droppingly bad. Fox threw out his challenge flag in the first quarter on a 23-yard catch-and-run by Justin Blackmon, thinking he had gone out of bounds after picking up a mere 16 yards.

Now, this was a third-and-5 on Jacksonville's side of the field — Blackmon had clearly picked up the first down in either case. Fox was using one of his two challenges during this game to pick up seven yards with 52 minutes of challengeable football left. Seven entirely meaningless yards. Even worse, Fox lost the challenge. Given the impossibly low reward and the outcome, this was probably the worst challenge in the history of the NFL replay system.

Sure, it was a game against the Jaguars in which Fox probably wasn't going to need his challenges anyway. Why does it matter? Because Fox might very well make a stupid challenge in a much more important game. If he doesn't understand that the flag never should have come out of his pocket in this situation, I wonder what Fox is thinking about whenever he decides to use his challenges. If those seven yards in the first quarter seem worth it, he just doesn't understand what the challenge flag is good for, and that might end up costing his team in a spot when the challenges really do matter. Last year, I wrote that a Pat Shurmur challenge was akin to having two wishes and using one of them to take out the trash. This was like using a wish to throw a can of beer into the trash and missing.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/78191/thank-you-for-not-coaching-week-6

[wayninja]

I agree, I was scratching my head on that one. Firstly, it was obvious that he didn't go out of bounds, secondly, there was just not much to gain by winning....

A good article.

[Buff]

It was a ridiculously bad challenge. And then prevented us from challenging a more legitimate play later in the game because we didn't want to run out of challenges.

[Broncolingus]

...maybe Fox just needed to do something to show he's still around...:D

...dude really hasn't had to coach much at all.

The challenge was stoopid, btw...meh

[broncohead]

Fox coaches. He just lets his OC and DC do their job.

[slim]

I have seen worse.

[BigDaddyBronco]

On the replays in the stadium it looked like he stepped out. Maybe they need a bigger video screen.

[claymore]

Somone had to try and stop Blackmon.

[topscribe]

I agree, I was scratching my head on that one. Firstly, it was obvious that he didn't go out of bounds, secondly, there was just not much to gain by winning....

A good article.
"Scratching my head' were the exact words I was going to use.

But then, I had an itch there, anyway . . .
.

[Buff]

On the replays in the stadium it looked like he stepped out. Maybe they need a bigger video screen.

Even if he did step out, the risk/reward didn't merit the challenge. They were going to have 1st and 10 regardless. Losing a challenge and a timeout doesn't outweigh gaining 7 yards of field position in the first half against a crappy offense.

[Day1BroncoFan]

this challenge left me wondering who actually did the challenge. If it was Fox then he should never be involved in the challenge process.

[SR]

On the replays in the stadium it looked like he stepped out. Maybe they need a bigger video screen.

Even then, they still move the chains.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

IIRC, Fox was asked about the challenge in his post-game press conference. He was so sure that the receiver stepped out of bounds. However, it didn't seem to dawn on him that he was using 1 of 2 challenges to save 7 meaningless yards in the 1st quarter of the game.

It was a dumb challenge, but he isn't the only one to do that.

[BroncoWave]

IIRC, Fox was asked about the challenge in his post-game press conference. He was so sure that the receiver stepped out of bounds. However, it didn't seem to dawn on him that he was using 1 of 2 challenges to save 7 meaningless yards in the 1st quarter of the game.

It was a dumb challenge, but he isn't the only one to do that.

And that is inexcusable, really. I hope he doesn't make that same kind of mistake in a playoff game. I just have no idea what his thought process was there.

[NightTrainLayne]

I heard Fox say that he saw it with his own eyes, and knew that the call was wrong. Unfortunately, he said, that there just wasn't a good camera angle to reverse it.

Either way it was wrong to challenge. I think he just acted too fast to challenge something that he knew was just a bad call without looking at the entire situation. Heat of the moment type of thing. Hopefully, he won't make the same mistake again.

[Joel]

this challenge left me wondering who actually did the challenge. If it was Fox then he should never be involved in the challenge process.
I thought head coaches made all challenges? I can't recall ever seeing anyone else make one.

The "now we can't challenge because it would be our last" thing still annoys me—but not as much as "we can't challenge because being RIGHT a third time means no more challenges." Just let 'em make challenges till they run out of time outs. That probably had something to do with Foxs decision, too: First half time outs aren't valued as highly, because teams are never in a situation where not/having a first half time out is obviously the difference between winning and losing (though it may be revealed to be later.)

Frankly, I think the whole challenge system was set up to prevent proving a blown call more than once per game. How many times have you seen a coach win two challenges...? Occasionally a coach wins THREE, yet must watch helplessly as refs blew another call on the field. For the league, that's better than a coach proving refs wrong half a dozen times in one game (or a half dozen plays like the GB/Seattle Fail Mary, where replay defends the refs on the field and everyone else cries foul.) That's a nightmare scenario for the league, so they've ensured it never happens.

It helps that all turnovers and scores are reviewed now (though it wouldn't have helped in the Oilers/Steelers AFC Championship that did more than anything to spawn replay review: That TD was ruled incomplete on the field, so there would've been no automatic review.) Eventually though there will be a postseason game—maybe even a SB—where a coach wins three challenges before his receiver's wrongly ruled out (or an opposing one wrongly ruled in) on a fourth down catch and a playoff game turns on an egregiously bad call and that three challenge limit.

As to Foxs specific challenge here, a first half time out was a relatively small risk; as he headed to the locker room, Fox was probably wishing the first half had eneded a minute or two sooner (I know I was.) That leaves us to consider the possibility of refs later blowing TWO big calls and Fox only being able to challenge one; the more likely that is, the more the problem is the replay limit itself rather than Fox.

[BroncoWave]

I have never seen a poster be so long-winded and make so few points. I have no idea what you are even arguing.

[wayninja]

I have never seen a poster be so long-winded and make so few points. I have no idea what you are even arguing.

No need to be a dick. You don't have to read it.

But yeah, Joel does like to analyze.

[BroncoWave]

No need to be a dick. You don't have to read it.

But yeah, Joel does like to analyze.

I just what to know what he is talking about.

[wayninja]

I just what to know what he is talking about.

I distill it for you:

Coaches make all the challenges.

Being able to only challenge 3 times (if you are right 2 times) stinks. You should be able to challenge as long as you have timeouts.

He thinks the challenge system was set up the way it was to intentionally limit the number of times the refs can be proven wrong to even less than the actual number of challenges (due to hoarding of the challenges as a 'just in case' near the end of the game). The league looks better if the refs can't be proven wrong too many times, they would rather a ref get the call wrong than be proven inept.

This is mitigated a bit by auto reviews of scoring/turnovers.

Fox's challenge was low risk, calculated. But if Fox had needed two challenges later, that would have proved the challenge system itself is more flawed than Fox's challenge.

[BroncoWave]

Fox's challenge was low risk, calculated. But if Fox had needed two challenges later, that would have proved the challenge system itself is more flawed than Fox's challenge.

This makes no sense though. Fox's challenge was stupid. Given that you have such a limited number of challenges, it makes literally no sense to waste one on something as trivial as a 7 yard difference in the first quarter.

[wayninja]

This makes no sense though. Fox's challenge was stupid. Given that you have such a limited number of challenges, it makes literally no sense to waste one on something as trivial as a 7 yard difference in the first quarter.

I agree with you as the way the system stands. But I do also see Joel's point about how the current system is a bit silly.

[BroncoWave]

I agree with you as the way the system stands. But I do also see Joel's point about how the current system is a bit silly.

I don't have a problem with the current system. If coaches had unlimited challenges, games would take 5 hours. The fact that all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed along with coaches getting at least 2 challenges is plenty. I mean seriously, how often do you see a bad call (on a challengable play) alter the outcome of the game because the coach was out of challenges? I can't remember it happening even once since they made it where all scoring plays and turnovers are reviewed. I don't see anything wrong with the system the way it is.

[wayninja]

I don't have a problem with the current system. If coaches had unlimited challenges, games would take 5 hours. The fact that all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed along with coaches getting at least 2 challenges is plenty. I mean seriously, how often do you see a bad call (on a challengable play) alter the outcome of the game because the coach was out of challenges? I can't remember it happening even once since they made it where all scoring plays and turnovers are reviewed. I don't see anything wrong with the system the way it is.

No one said unlimited. Joel said as long as they have timeouts. You still lose one if you are wrong, but don't if you are right. It's unclear if he wants the under 2 minute thing eliminated. Joel also conceded that auto reviews to mitigate this.

Joel cited a few cases above. It does happen. But it's more the principle of the thing than anything. You shouldn't have to be forced to NOT challenge something you know is wrong just in case something more important comes up later.

I'm done playing Joel advocate, you can address your concerns to him. Joel, get your ass back in here to clean up your mess!

[BroncoWave]

The only thing I would change about the challenge system is to make near-TDs and near-turnovers auto-reviewed too. For example, if a WR makes a borderline catch in the endzone and they call it a TD, it's reviewed. But if it's called incomplete, the coach has to use a challenge. I'm not a huge fan of that. Or as another example, if a fumble is called and it's turned over, they will review to see if the runner is down. But if the runner is whistled down and the D recovers the fumble, the coach has to challenge. Those auto-reviews are done in the booth and usually take less than a minute anyway, so I think those plays should be added as well.

[zbeg]

If I was an owner, I'd bring in people to teach my coaching staff game theory so that simple errors like this wouldn't be made.

[Joel]

The only thing I would change about the challenge system is to make near-TDs and near-turnovers auto-reviewed too. For example, if a WR makes a borderline catch in the endzone and they call it a TD, it's reviewed. But if it's called incomplete, the coach has to use a challenge. I'm not a huge fan of that. Or as another example, if a fumble is called and it's turned over, they will review to see if the runner is down. But if the runner is whistled down and the D recovers the fumble, the coach has to challenge. Those auto-reviews are done in the booth and usually take less than a minute anyway, so I think those plays should be added as well.
This is the first play you described: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCFx5jC_q4 That was an AFC Championship and, as the video notes, widely considered what made replay review a reality. Like I say, reviewing all scores/turnovers helps things, but doesn't help those situations at all, because the call on the field was "no catch," so no automatic review. If it happens four times in a game, too bad.

As things stand, coaches rarely prove refs wrong more than once/game. If they lose either of the first two challenges there's no third, and losing the first makes the second the LAST—win or lose (hence this thread.) If they can challenge till their last time out they can't be wrong >3 times/half, so it won't extend games much—unless there are MANY blown calls, in which case the coach SHOULD be able to challenge each one.

Right now, even if he wins his first challenge he doesn't dare challenge again unless it's "worth it," because losing prevents challenging when he NEEDS to do it. Note: Call, not callS; even if he wins AGAIN, he's down to his last challenge. That's the best argument against Foxs challenge: Even WINNING costs a coach something now. It shouldn't, but it does. The thing is, the more likely Fox was to need a third challenge (or fourth,) the less sense it makes to say he can't have a third unless he wins the first two (and can't have a fourth at all.)

[Joel]

Oh, and on the booth reviews under 2:00: Not a fan. Having the booth require confirmation of close game-ending calls (whether or not coaches do) was a good idea, but FORBIDDING coaches doing so was not. Yes, they want to challenge every close call at the end of games; no, they can't do it more than twice unless they're never wrong, or more than three times AT ALL. IF they haven't previously challenged, and don't mind risking a time out (even though they may be trailing with <2:00 left.) Let 'em challenge till they're out of time outs; I guarantee coaches won't be challenging left and right in the second half.

[BroncoWave]

Joel, show me ONE example of a team losing a game because a coach wasn't able to challenge a bad call at the end of the game. Not an example from over 20 years ago, an example since they have put in the current replay rules.

[BroncoFan85]

You treat every game the same regardless if its the jags everyone says it is a game of inches so if he thought he went out of bounds 7 yards before then I understand the challenge.

[BroncoWave]

You treat every game the same regardless if its the jags everyone says it is a game of inches so if he thought he went out of bounds 7 yards before then I understand the challenge.

The difference between 7 yards in the first quarter is not worth the risk of losing one of your challenges. Not even close. Especially since he was wrong about it. Someone in the booth should have told him not to throw the flag there.

[BroncoFan85]

zbeg I think John Fox knows enough about football.A lot more than you

[BroncoWave]

zbeg I think John Fox knows enough about football.A lot more than you

Proper use of challenges has almost nothing to do with football knowledge. John Fox probably does know more about football than everyone on this board put together, but that doesn't change the fact that he grossly misused that challenge.

[zbeg]

Proper use of challenges has almost nothing to do with football knowledge. John Fox probably does know more about football than everyone on this board put together, but that doesn't change the fact that he grossly misused that challenge.

Right. From a game theory standpoint, this is absolutely awful. You don't need to understand Xs and Os to realize that risking something valuable in order to achieve minimal gains is really bad.

[Joel]

Joel, show me ONE example of a team losing a game because a coach wasn't able to challenge a bad call at the end of the game. Not an example from over 20 years ago, an example since they have put in the current replay rules.
Sooo... one game out of the first six weeks of 2013; ya got me: Can't do it. If you mean since coaches challenges, those only go back 13 years, though I admit I can't think of any (but I'm also REALLY sleepy.)

The thing is, the counterargument is basically just "I'd get 3-4 more (max) chances to grab another beer/make room for one." Unless the refs blow LOTS of calls, of course. If we're talking risk/reward.....

[Simple Jaded]

It's Peyton Manning's fault, I don't think Tony Dungy ever won a single challenge, Manning must have this bad replay juju.

[BroncoWave]

Sooo... one game out of the first six weeks of 2013; ya got me: Can't do it. If you mean since coaches challenges, those only go back 13 years, though I admit I can't think of any (but I'm also REALLY sleepy.)

The thing is, the counterargument is basically just "I'd get 3-4 more (max) chances to grab another beer/make room for one." Unless the refs blow LOTS of calls, of course. If we're talking risk/reward.....

All scoring plays and turnovers were reviewed last season too I believe. So that is a year and 6 games worth of data. Like I said, I will worry about this system when teams start losing games because they ran out of challenges. I feel safe in saying that's probably not gonna happen under this system.

[TXBRONC]

It's Peyton Manning's fault, I don't think Tony Dungy ever won a single challenge, Manning must have this bad replay juju.

In Klis' mailbag yesterday he was asked that challenge and he said that this year he's 0 for 3 last year he was 6 for 7.