Explain the logic

[RoaringRiot]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

From the stands it might not have been as obvious but from home and watching the same replays as the booth sees it felt like a no-brainer to me. 

Was the +5 worth using one of two challenges? That's more of the question than whether or not the play was going to be overturned. 

Edit: I still don't think it was, personally. 

[t96]

3 minutes ago, ShutDwn said:

The risk all shifts to only having one guaranteed challenge left.

What if we win that challenge, lose the next one and then an actually important play happens but have no challenges left?

You could just not challenge 6 yards and have two challenges.

There was 10min or so left in the game. Unlikely you'd even need 1 challenge before the 2 minute warning, let alone 2. And there's nothing to suggest we'd lose another one. It would've been more likely if we didn't challenge it that we ended the game with all our challenges unused and gave them an extra 5 yards with the risk of giving them a free first down with a dumb penalty.

[SmokinwithWilly]

10 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

This play would never stand. No matter the refs looking at it or which team was paying them. Sure there are plays that seem clear but not like this.

Have you been watching the NFL this year? 

[RoaringRiot]

8 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Have you been watching the NFL this year? 

Winner!

[osd22]

I was wondering more how the refs failed to see that the ball hit the ground.

[Jimmy]

10 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

Was the +5 worth using one of two challenges? That's more of the question than whether or not the play was going to be overturned. 

Edit: I still don't think it was, personally. 

I see your point but my feeling is as how this season has gone we need every yard we can get. Also, it's not like RR is a clock management guru so having one challenge or two or three timeouts versus two wouldn't make much difference anyway 

[RoaringRiot]

5 minutes ago, osd22 said:

I was wondering more how the refs failed to see that the ball hit the ground.

I've stopped wondering about anything the refs do these days. 

[the butch]

An unspoken concern--or maybe to rephrase a prior point--is what will Ron do in other situations involving the same calculus?  That is, strip out the specific play at hand, insert other game facts from your football memory, now:  in any of those given plays, assume the scenario is that the output will be substantially similar with our without an input.  Binary says don't waste resources.  NFL coaching may advise otherwise.  Maybe we can just chalk it up to Riverboat Ron living up to his name?

[tiger7_88]

30 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

Yeah I guess. Just didn't seem necessary. Olsen didn't think so either. 

Plus, as others have probably already pointed out, even if by some NFL directive we lost what should have been a clear overturning of a call, we still had another challenge remaining.

But as thomas is saying, I don't think even the NFL would have wanted the heat of letting that clear incompletion on replay (as clear as I've ever seen) stand as a completion on replay.

And people have already pointed out the advantages for the receiving team of it being 4th and 7 rather than 4th in 2 in the case of a 5-yd penalty occurring prior to the kick (and the way we get penalties on ST, whose to say we wouldn't get one?).

And another thing is in a game where both offenses are struggling, 4th and 2 is a huge temptation for a team to fake a punt and get that 1st down.  4th and 7?  Not so much.

Almost every advantage in this situation comes down on the side of getting that play reviewed and overturned.

[bigdog10]

With how stupid some of our special teamers play (cough teddy Williams cough).  He was probably worried one of them would jump offsides or lineup in the neutral zone and give the Bucs a first down. 

[PantherJD]

As others have said, there's a huge difference between 4th and 7 and 4th and 1 (or 2).  There's no fear of an offside or running into the kicker penalty so you can come after the punt if you choose to do so as long as you don't rough the punter.  (Of course we never do that, but the option is there).  

Also, although it appeared that they were lining up to punt, you always have the possibility that they may go for it or try the whole draw-'em-offside deal.  Rivera may have made his decision before he noticed they were punting, or he may have just decided that it was easier to get rid of that whole headache altogether.

If the play isn't obvious, then of course you don't challenge it.  But, when the spotters in your ear tell you it's a definite drop and all your players are telling you the same thing, it's worth it to push them back since there's no risk of losing the challenge.  The only risk you take is the small chance that you mess up a challenge later and then need another one, but that's a tough "if" to worry about when you have a situation right before you that can be improved.  If we had done something dumb and jumped offside on the punt, he would have regretted not using the challenge for something so obvious.

[PantherPhann89]

I think that Ron saw something that he could control and went for it. Our coaching staff is well below average and I'm not sure that our FO knows how to correct it. The Panthers coaching staff has a history of not adapting and or correcting what we're doing wrong during games and it continues after changing head coaches. Our offensive play calling went to crap under Chud so we promoted Shula and it's still crap. We need a mentality change in Charlotte!

[pstall]

To me step back from the math and probabilities for a moment. 

With 10 mins to go in the game what was the tempo and momentum like at the time of the flag? Was Tampa moving the ball well or had they converted several 3rd and shorts or were we racking up penalties leading up to that?

This gives me better context. 

[pantherphan96]

that was as clear a challenge as you will ever see in the NFL. .00001% risk vs virtually guaranteed 5 yards. this is the last thing from Monday night i would question/complain about.