I don't understand the whole you only get two challenges thing. It helped us out but it may hurt us some day too.

If the Giants were right on the first challenge and wrong on the second challenge, why are they unable to challenge again? I don't see the logic. Why not just have a rule that says if you get two challenges wrong, you get no more challenges.

There must be some kind of logic behind it but I just don't see it.

---

the game is long enough as it is. if not 2 then how many? 10? at one time there was the 90 second time limit & that seems to be gone now. can't imagine how long it would take to have more challenges.

The NFL has to work around the schedules of the major networks. If I'm not mistaken, the league allots 90 seconds for officials to examine replays. If they allowed unlimited challenges, the league fears that games would drag on much longer, thereby running into the later games. This would not please the networks or the viewing audiences. It would mean fans of teams in the earlier games would miss more of the 4th quarter more often, since by league rule the networks must show the beginning of the later games on time. That's why networks frequently are unable to show the full overtime period for earlier games. They have to cut away to the later kickoffs.

---

As noted, they have to set a limit on the challenges for time reason, however I think there is more to it than that.

By making both of the first two count and burning a timeout if they are wrong is to increase the value of the challenges, so that a coach doesn't utilize a challenge as an additional timeout within the game just to slow down or change the momentum of a game.

Challenging a call create a disruption in play and honestly forces an issue for the TV broadcasts themselves.. do they cut to another unscheduled commercial or stay and play the jeopardy music?

I have no issue with a coach getting dinged the additional challenge if they lost another challenge earlier in the game. With the technology of today.. they should have little doubt before throwing the red hanky.. if not.. take your chances.

---

I realize correlation is not causation, but ISTM that officiating has in general got worse since replay has been availiable.

Not to mention everyone/everything is getting more and more legalistic (e.g., "process", "second move", etc.)

I know it'll never happen -- we'll see more and more tech looking at more and more stuff instead -- but I'm starting to believe we'd be better off if you got rid of it entirely.

---

If you had a chance to challenge every play in the game, then why wouldn't you just challenge every negative play for your team.

What I don't understand it is this: if you get your two first challenges right, you get a third one. But if you get that right you don't get anymore. It doesn't make sense that way, it's like the system is built so that officials can screw the game for you. I think if you got every challenge right, you should have as much challenges as you like until you blow one.

---

Yeah, it should be something like that. I would propose that each team gets two wrong challenges per game. If you're wrong twice, you don't deserve another one. But until then, you get as many as you want. That's how it works in tennis, on a set-by-set basis.

Right now, teams are only allowed two challenges unless both are overturned, and even then they are only allowed three. I don't think it's a major time issue for the networks because they can run commercials during challenges, then eliminate commercial breaks later in the game as necessary.

---

I think it works like it is. 2 challenges, a third if you get the 1st 2 right.
Any more and you slow the game to a standstill.
Unlimited challenges, and you would see teams challenge just to get a clock stoppage. Or to try to change momentum.

---

I think they should use the "Double Dog Dare Ya" challenge.

Scene: Lambeau Field; late December; temperature hovering around a balmy 0 degrees with wind off the bay.

Coach Grant of the Vikings has arisen to take over the hapless and domeless Vikings who now play their games at Winona State U. stadium which seats around 12,000 who could care less. Play goes against Vikings and Buddy, who thought they scored a TD, immediately throws the red flag, which is intercepted by Charles Woodson who is in his 25th season and leads the world in intercepted red flags.

Ref: "What the hell you challenging, Bud? You couldn't see that Favres' cane was down on the 20 yard line? That was no touchdown dummy. You're on your own 20!"

Bud: "I'm still challenging it, under principle. Ya gotta review it. I Dare you to review it."

Ref: "Yeah, well I Double Dog Dare you to pick that red flag up and shove it up your.............!"

Bud: "Oh, the old Double Dog Dare, huh? Well, I Triple Dog Dare you to stick your tongue on that goal post over there."

Ref: "You think I'm nuts. Besides that doesn't work. My old man says it's a crock of crap. But, I'll do it if you come and stick your old petrified tongue on the post too."

And so, as darkness settles over Lambeau and Green Bay, passengers on flights arriving at Austin Stroebel Field look out in awe and amazement to see Ref Jerry Markbreit and Coach Bud Grant stuck tightly to the goal post, arms waving frantically.

And some even say they could hear feint cries in the night..."Elp, I'n thuck."

"Thut up Bud."

"I ubble dog dare ou! I thallege that call."

---

It's not challenges are free. You lose a timeout, I don't really agree with the theory that suddenly coaches would start throwing out challenges left and right.

If the above is true that if you get both right you get a third but not a fourth. Then if you get two challenges right, its a playoff game. You get a third right. Then in the 4th quarter something extremely obvious happens, I just don't see the logic that you get punished and you could lose the game because the NFL doesn't want more breaks. I just assumed if your going to have instant replay in a sport, its main purpose is to make sure the right call is called.

---