Explain the logic

[RoaringRiot]

Can someone help me out here? I was confused as hell when it was happening and I also saw Olsen get pissed about it while it was happening....

What was the point of challenging that play when we stopped the Bucs short inside of their own 40 and it was going to be 4th and 2? They were going to punt it. So we challenge, win the challenge, it becomes 4th and 7, and they still punt. Was it worth using a challenge to gain the extra 5 yards?

[the butch]

I think we're all still looking for answers re: Ron's use of timeouts.  He's definitely prisoner of the moment in those situations.

[Neylus]

You cannot apply logic to most of the critical coaching decisions made in this game, you just can't. 

[t96]

Uhh it was in the 4th quarter so we'd still have another challenge and 2 if we won another so it wasn't really a waste or anything. There was no downside to doing it. On 4th and 2 with all the penalties what if we went offsides or ran into the kicker? 1st down Bucs. 4th and 7 would go to 4th and 2. If the play wasn't so clearly not a catch then it wouldn't be smart but it was 100% clear as day and certainly the right decision to challenge it. And 5 yards could honestly be the difference  a game.

[thefuzz]

Didn't love the call, but understood it more than the go for the win.....no, go for the tie.......no, go for the win..........loss scenario that played out.

[SCP]

No, you are correct RR.  I was asking the people in my section the same thing during the challenge.  Why waste it? Why risk a timeout if they don't confirm the challenge?  We stopped them, they were punting, and we netted 5 yards.  It was a bonehead move and one that made zero sense at the time and even less sense now.

[Mage]

Field position

[the butch]

4 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

Uhh it was in the 4th quarter so we'd still have another challenge and 2 if we won another so it wasn't really a waste or anything. There was no downside to doing it. On 4th and 2 with all the penalties what if we went offsides or ran into the kicker? 1st down Bucs. 4th and 7 would go to 4th and 2. If the play wasn't so clearly not a catch then it wouldn't be smart but it was 100% clear as day and certainly the right decision to challenge it. And 5 yards could honestly be the difference  a game.

Risk of losing a timeout and a challenge if it fails . . . just for the other team to punt it anyway.  Risk analysis would be:  gain a few extra yards OR lose two extremely valuable resources.  Is it worth it?  

[SmokinwithWilly]

The only thing I thought of at the time was, given the field position and how little gain there would be if the ball went out of the end zone on the punt, TB might have tried a fake punt. Pushing them back pretty much made sure they would punt.

[ItsPantone278]

Considering how the secondary has performed you have to force incompletions anyway you can.  Only sense that can be made of it.

[t96]

2 minutes ago, Dick the Butcher said:

Risk of losing a timeout and a challenge if it fails . . . just for the other team to punt it anyway.  Risk analysis would be:  gain a few extra yards OR lose two extremely valuable resources.  Is it worth it?  

On that play there was absolutely zero risk of that at all.

[L-TownCat]

Not trying to get conspiratorial but maybe Ron was trying to show the refs he sees their "questionable"  calls.

[RoaringRiot]

5 minutes ago, Dick the Butcher said:

Risk of losing a timeout and a challenge if it fails . . . just for the other team to punt it anyway.  Risk analysis would be:  gain a few extra yards OR lose two extremely valuable resources.  Is it worth it?  

This is definitely where my thinking was. I mean....I guess I can kind of buy what @thomas96 was saying, but even taking that into consideration it doesn't seem worth it. 

[ok2h8pep]

Ron had to take advantage of that opportunity.   There were some young men that needed that experience.