Did the Cowboys make the right call by not challenging Tony Romo's fumble early in th

[Cr122]

Did the Cowboys make the right call by not challenging Tony Romo's fumble early in the fourth quarter?

By Brandon George / Reporter
bgeorge@dallasnews.com | Bio
12:26 AM on Mon., Sep. 12, 2011 | Permalink

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- The Cowboys' first major mistake of the fourth quarter came when quarterback Tony Romo fumbled the football at the 3-yard line while trying to run into the end zone on third-and-goal with about 9 minutes to play in the game.

Romo was hit from the side by New York Jets defensive end Mike DeVito while running up the middle, and defensive tackle Sione Pouha recovered the fumble. Replays, however, appeared to show that Romo's knee was down before he fumbled the football. In the end, the Cowboys decided not to challenge the call, possibly costing them a field goal attempt in a three-point loss.

Cowboys coach Jason Garrett said he considered challenging the call.

"We were just trying to get our own information from upstairs," Garrett said. "[We were] just trying to get the best look at it that we can and then make the right decision. Obviously, timeouts are critical at the end of the ballgames. You don't want to be frivolous with that challenge. If it was close, we definitely would have challenged it, but our guys upstairs said they felt like the ball came out."

Did the Cowboys make the right decision by not challenging the call?

 

[Cr122]

At first I wanted them to challenge it, but the replay clearly showed the ball coming out just before Romo's knee hit the turf.

 

[dbair1967]

Pretty stupid suggestion by the writer, because it was an obvious fumble. The call had zero chance of being overturned. No sense throwing away a timeout in a close game during the 4th qtr.

 

[Plymkr]

Pretty stupid suggestion by the writer, because it was an obvious fumble. The call had zero chance of being overturned. No sense throwing away a timeout in a close game during the 4th qtr.

Agreed.

Also, makes no damn sense throwing in that situation in the first place. but, go figure.

 

[dbair1967]

Agreed.

Also, makes no damn sense throwing in that situation in the first place. but, go figure.

Sure it made sense. It was 3rd and goal and they (Jets defensive front) had been having their way stuffing the run most of the night. We ran the down before, and didnt get any push. They wanted to score a TD and get the kill, which was the right thing to do. But the QB has to understand that you cant turn the ball over in that situation. We're ahead by 7, a FG makes it two possessions.

There was nothing wrong with the playcalling last night.

 

[Cythim]

We should have run,run,run,FG instead of passing then. Run the clock down and go up by two scores. The TD is great if you get it by why risk the turnover when it isn't necessary?

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Sure it made sense. It was 3rd and goal and they (Jets defensive front) had been having their way stuffing the run most of the night. We ran the down before, and didnt get any push. They wanted to score a TD and get the kill, which was the right thing to do. But the QB has to understand that you cant turn the ball over in that situation. We're ahead by 7, a FG makes it two possessions.

There was nothing wrong with the playcalling last night.

They could have called that exact same play to Felix where he scored down there. Sometimes calling the same play again is not a bad strategy, especially if it worked the first time. You don't always have to mix things up.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

We should have run,run,run,FG instead of passing then. Run the clock down and go up by two scores. The TD is great if you get it by why risk the turnover when it isn't necessary?

I don't have a problem with passing down there on the GL, but with Garrett, it often seems like it's his first and only option.

But my biggest concer is our inability to convert 3rd and 1, while our opponanats convert 3rd and 10 as if it was 3rd and 1.

 

[Plymkr]

Sure it made sense. It was 3rd and goal and they (Jets defensive front) had been having their way stuffing the run most of the night. We ran the down before, and didnt get any push. They wanted to score a TD and get the kill, which was the right thing to do. But the QB has to understand that you cant turn the ball over in that situation. We're ahead by 7, a FG makes it two possessions.

There was nothing wrong with the playcalling last night.

They ran on first down. 2nd down incomplete to Austin.

You still run down there. You play pussy Parcell's ball right there, considering the situation and how suprisingly well the team was playing. You also take time off of the clock and put the pressure on the Jets. Now, if Dallas was down by 7?

I would still run and take the points, especially the first game of the season.

 

[cmd34]

We should have run,run,run,FG instead of passing then. Run the clock down and go up by two scores. The TD is great if you get it by why risk the turnover when it isn't necessary?

Have to agree with this. With the lead, being an away game, and the injuries to the CB's, you line up in goal line and hand it off 3 times. Best case scenario is you punch it in. Worst case scenario, you take as much time off the clock as possible and take the FG. Garrett needs to learn from this situation. That and Romo learning to stop making careless plays and Ryan learning that he absolutely can not depend on his safeties.