Arizona just got shafted

[bouconagain]

I'm not sure of all the grasping and whatnot, but the point is that it's the rule that you have to have a time-out to challenge outside of the final two minutes of a half or the game. The play could be horrible, everyone in the crowd might know it's horrible, the opposing team, the media, the people watching the television, everyone might think it's a horrible decision, but it's the rule. The Cardinals didn't have a time-out; because they used their alotted time-outs prior to the final two minutes. Therefore, they couldn't challenge the obvious wrong call. If the same thing happened to the Bucs, I'd be saying foolish Gruden for not managing the time-outs better. Bad calls will happen, and you have to be smart enough to thwart them before they come. You do that by game management. Arizona didn't have to use all their time-outs when they did, but they chose to do so, thus making it impossible to challenge the errored call on the field of play. It happens.

Well, in the grand scheme of watching-NFL-as-a-purist-rather-than-a-fan, that's an even worse rationalization than mine.  At least mine is simple: if it benefits the Bucs, I don't care, if it hurts them I do.  You're saying that the call sucked, but that the coach should count on crappy ref calls in the 4th quarter and save timeouts on that basis?

Sorry, I think timeouts are for much more strategic purposes than preserving a right to challenge a bad call outside of 2 minutes.  And if you think the system should be changed because it's flawed (which I don't, because, again, it didn't hurt the Bucs, though Illuminator rightly points out I'll be whining as soon as it does), then it's no defense to say that the coach could have anticipated a bad call and saved a TO just for that.  It's just a bad rationalization.

That's one odd aspect of the review rules, somehow it seems to have shifted the responsibility for poor officiating onto the teams and off of the officials. I'll have to disagree with that view.

[GrudenFan63]

What you call bad rationalization, I call good preparation. It's like wearing your seatbelt when you drive a car. You might not wreck, but just in case... The fault lies with the officiating, yes, but running out of time-outs when you're losing and trying to mount some sort of drive (although common) is borderline foolish too.

[bouconagain]

That's one odd aspect of the review rules, somehow it seems to have shifted the responsibility for poor officiating onto the teams and off of the officials. I'll have to disagree with that view.

Completely agree with you on this, btw.  No way in hell that a bad call by a ref should ever be a coach's fault.

[bouconagain]

running out of time-outs when you're losing and trying to mount some sort of drive (although common) is borderline foolish too.

Any coach in the league would have called AZ's 2nd and 3rd timeouts exactly when AZ called them.

He looked in to me.

[bouconagain]

He looked in to me.

That's because you're a homer.  That was not an interception.

[GrudenFan63]

It's impossible to say whether they would or not, but I think some of them might have taken the clock closer to the 2-minute warning first. It's a done issue. The game's not going to be reversed on account of the officials watching replays of the game. It was a bad call, but oh well. I don't think, though not positive, that it would have made any difference in the outcome. Even if it was against the Bucs, you accept it and move on. Nothing's going to be changed about it now.

[bouconagain]

It's impossible to say whether they would or not, but I think some of them might have taken the clock closer to the 2-minute warning first.

What?!  The point is that every coach would have used both TOs prior to the 2 minute mark.  It's irrelevant whether they would do it at 2:40 or at 2:10 - in both cases, they'd be in the same spot as AZ - out of TOs and powerless to challenge a crappy call before the 2 minute warning.

[GrudenFan63]

You use a time-out say 2:10. That's your last time-out. Now unless a bad call occurs in that 10 seconds, you have the official's review under the two minutes, and you still have the make-shift time-out in the warning. That's what I was referring to when I said take the time-out closer to the warning. But again, something might change for a future game, but nothing's going to change on this one. It's done.

Obviously, I'm not a coach... but if I was I would try to save at least one time out for your final possession. It really increases your options.

[bouconagain]

You always try to keep at least one time-out until after the 2-minute warning; for that reason.

This is a very different argument than this:

You use a time-out say 2:10. That's your last time-out. Now unless a bad call occurs in that 10 seconds, you have the official's review under the two minutes, and you still have the make-shift time-out in the warning. That's what I was referring to when I said take the time-out closer to the warning.

But they're both bad.  The first one is bad because it's irrelevant - if you're under 2 minutes, it doesn't matter if you have a TO or not because only the booth can challenge.  If the argument is that you're better off "risking" a bad call at 2:10 than at 2:40, well, that seems to be stretching the argument to beyond silly.

Saving a time out to force the defense to defend the middle of the field is a valid argument though.

[bouconagain]

Saving a time out to force the defense to defend the middle of the field is a valid argument though.

Agreed.  There are buckets of reasons to save TOs for after the 2 minute mark.

Just none that are relevant to this topic, unfortunately, which was to save TOs until some (unspecified) time before the 2 minute mark, in the offchance a ref makes an atrocious call and you can't challenge it, seeing as how you're out of timeouts and all.

[bouconagain]

I am glad the mistake went against them and not us. You should too.

that is exactly the point.  Put aside this Gandhi If-I-don't-speak-up-for-them-they-won't-speak-up-for-me crap.  The Bucs won, end of story.