Why didn't Danny challenge?

I was watching the edm/TO gme today and near the end of the game Edmonton faked the punt and turned the ball over on downs by what appeared to be about 2 inches. He needed to get to the 46?? I think… However on the replay (and keep in mind I very much wanted Edmonton to lose so my bias should say otherwise) the guy looked like he made it well over the first down marker and was screwed about 1-2 feet on the spot. Since it was third down, why did Danny not throw the challenge flag to challenge the spot? This is not allowed on anything but third down and I think this situation more than warranted a challenge… especially in such an important game. Do I have the rules wrong or did Danny screw up?

Go Riders!!

I can only assume the spotter upstairs told him he would lose.

I got it on tape, watched it several times and there is no way that I can see that he would have lost the challenge. Plus, he still had his freeby challenge so what was there to lose?

I expected him to challange as well.

IT was reported that about a 1/2 hour ago Danny finally dropped the flag in the locker room and is waiting for a ruling.

You're as funny as you are intelligent. Double trouble.

While we are talking about challenges.

I think you should be allowed to challenge anything! You have to and should be able to use them for what you want

yup. They should be allowed to challenge every play. Start the game at 6 in the morn and maybe we all be home by supper :stuck_out_tongue:

The point is you have 2 challenges!
Why not for example allow them to challenge a second down spot. If you lose, you lost a challenge like it was 3rd down!
Whats the difference

He could have and absolutely should have challenged. Goes to show that he is about as smart as a bag of door handles. EE, on the other hand, is not so lucky to have that sort of intelligence.

Im sorry but it wouldn't have mattered.

Now that I think of it.
He should have challanged the punt fumble by Tompkins. He might have had a shot at it

Theres no way he had a shot at challenging that
fumble. It was obvious...........hmmmm
on second thought maybe he should have
challenged it. :lol:

I question a lot of the tactics by the Eskimos coach. The one that really had me shaking my head was in the last minute, down by ten they gamble on third down at the 40. Try the field goal and then the on-side kick, instead they chew up the clock.

I'm sorry but Danny may be good at drawing up plays but his brain freezes in the final 2 minutes. Also his absolute reluctance to pull Ricky Ray makes it easy for teams to prepare as they know Danny will never pull him. This surprizes me somewhat, as Hugh Campbell never hesitated to put in his number two, even for just a couple of series just to change the pace a little.

Hugh Campbell had who on the sideline?
Warren Moon, Wilkinson, Lemmerman?
Dancin' Danny has who?
Seriously, I can't recall his name right now...?
Anyway, Ricky Ray is the best QB in the league right now and you guys could be 0-16 if not for his grit and determination. he is for sure your MVP and should be the West and league all-star (though he likely won't because of the love interest in Sask from guys like Vanstone for Burris).

plus, pulling the QB for a few plays is historically one of the least effective techniques out there.
Higgins did it with Hendricks a few years ago. Where is that guy now?

Johnson. That's it...yeah...with your season on the line, I'd make sure to get him in the game instead of Ricky Ray.
Fans from all teams sure are entertaining!
Get that backup in there, no matter how brutal he might be!

Actually the tactic of sitting your starter, especially late in the first half has been used effectively many times. It gives the opposition another look to think about, it allows your starter to settledown and take a look at things from another perspective.

Campbell many time would pull Wilkinson and put Lemmerman in for a couple of series, the stick Wilkie back in in the second half. It was a very effective tactic then and could be now.

Macioca should have challenged that play. Even if the ball is moved only an inch or two forward ,it could have been enough to get the 1st down and keep the drive alive. If I were an Eskimo fan right now, I would be very choked at Danny M, for not at least trying to give the impression that you would do anything to save your season.

Well you are going to have to come up with a few more examples where sitting your starter for a series and then putting him back in as part of a design has been successful, because I can only think of failures.
The "Hendricks" example of course.
I also recall Pinball doing it with Daman Allan a couple years ago.
They lost the game.
It is a tactic rarely used. Fans seem to call for all the time. Coaches and players don't like it.

And as I said, comparing taking Wilkinson out so you can put Lemmerman or Moon in is one thing. Taking out a veteran and clear number one to put in a rookie is a recipe for disaster. I think it would have been awfully rare that Campbell or Jauch ever took his starter out with the clear intention of putting him back in after a couple of series. But there was no clear starter then. Remember, Lemmerman was the #1 guy until he got hurt. Or if a guy is dinged up, sure.
And taking out your MVP QB, Ricky Ray so a complete unknown like Johnson can play is suicidal.