This article would have been better argued had it provided stats on close calls which SHOULD have been challenged, by players with challenges remaining, but wer

This article would have been better argued had it provided stats on close calls which SHOULD have been challenged, by players with challenges remaining, but were not (for whatever reason). In the absence of that information, and given more than 2 in 3 challenges are overruled, it's forced to boil down to the conclusion that players should "challenge recreationally" to disprupt an opponent. Poor maths. Worse sportsmanship.