Not challenging Dalton sideline catch or Cook TD

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think sucks is harsh but underwhelming? Definitely. And you are right what he is offering as a receiver has to be better to accept his failings as a blocker. Ertz was my comparison coming out. He was always utter garbage as a blocker too. But he being a receiver level talent as a pass catcher meant it was worth the trade off. It is true to say teams are defending the Bills at the moment by trying to take the middle of the field (where Kincaid works) away because they have nothing outside and that hurts him, but he needs to do more with his opportunities too. Too many mistakes so far this year.

I don’t even know what you do though if he is getting blown up that bad on screens…like those were all set up to be pretty big plays it is honestly kind of amazing they ALL went that badly 😂

[Zag20]

2 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

No he didn't, it clearly wasn't a catch and no amount of mental gymnastics people want to do would have magically transformed it into one.  It was clearly NOT a catch, the ball moved far more than is allowed for it to be considered a catch when falling to the ground out of bounds.  There has to be clear evidence to overturn it.  If anything, the overturn would have happened if it was ruled a catch and then challenged by Houston.

 

 

It is not a catch. If he was in bounds then yes. But the rule is NOT the same when he falls to the ground out of bounds.  He has to maintain control without it moving significantly...it moved significantly to the point it went between his legs and he pinned it to his legs. Again...that's fine if he was in bounds, but that's not OK when he lands out of bounds.

Come on man, both announcers were saying it was a catch, which NEVER happens.  He grabs the balls with both hands and two feet in bounds. After that he basically has carte blanch to do whatever he wants with the ball going to the ground. That’s been the standard for like 8 years. It’s a coaching failure to not challenge that. 

Edited October 8 by Zag20

[oldmanfan]

26 minutes ago, Zag20 said:

Come on man, both announcers were saying it was a catch, which NEVER happens.  He grabs the balls with both hands and two feet in bounds. After that he basically has carte blanch to do whatever he wants with the ball going to the ground. That’s been the standard for like 8 years. It’s a coaching failure to not challenge that. 

They hired an ex-NFL ref to advise on replays.  I am sure he told them it was not a catch.  

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

The announcers agreed Kincaid one was a catch and should McDermott should have thrown the flag

 

The announcers are idiots then.

[Matt_In_NH]

There is nothing McDermott can do that won’t get criticized.  When he losses challenges he gets hammered.  When he does not challenge calls that had not chance of getting overturned he gets criticized. 
 

Just to be clear those were not calls that should have been challenged.  They were clear as day called correctly with 0 chance of getting overturned.  What are we doing here?

[balln]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The announcers are idiots then.

Hey! You don’t talk about Ian “Mr jets “ Eagle and Charles “captain obvious” Davis like that! You just DONT!

[ProcessTruster]

13 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

This is my favorite example of gameday thread posters being out of their mind…would’ve unquestionably been a failed challenge then when our offense got the ball back with a minute left and one of the timeouts was wasted y’all would’ve complained about the challenge.  
 

we see those ball wobbling while going to the ground plays all the time around the nfl and they are never overturned 

and McD knows this and therefore did not challenge.  

[SoonerBillsFan]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The announcers are idiots then.

No they aren't,by rule it would have been a catch.

[GunnerBill]

35 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

No they aren't,by rule it would have been a catch.

 

I'm not as strident as some on the Kincaid play, I do think there is a chance that gets overturned - but I think there is a better chance they stay with the call. While Kincaid doesn't drop the ball it is moving a lot and the point definitely comes into contact with the ground. That isn't a problem as long as the player is judged to have established clear possession but because of how much the ball was moving during the process I think they'd have said Kincaid hadn't and therefore the tip of the ball hitting the ground means the ground assisted him controlling the ball. It certainly isn't a catch by rule. It is a judgment call. Had it been called a catch on the field I think they'd have found insufficient evidence to overturn had Houston challenged, but given it was called incomplete I think there was enough doubt they'd have stayed with that call. 

 

EDIT: The Cook one for me is the one that would have been an entirely performative challenge that you had absolutely zero chance of winning. 

Edited October 8 by GunnerBill

[BarleyNY]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

What you have seen worse calls where clearly the right call was made on the field and replay overturned to a clearly wrong call? I haven't. 

In the same game they would have automatically reviewed Coleman’s TD. Sure looked like he stepped OOB at least once, but they let it stand. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, BarleyNY said:

In the same game they would have automatically reviewed Coleman’s TD. Sure looked like he stepped OOB at least once, but they let it stand. 

 

Your eyes must work very differently to mine. I thought Coleman came close twice but clearly stayed in bounds. And even so that wouldn't be an example of what I was asking. Even if that was a wrong call (it wasn't) it was a wrong call that they upheld on replay. I was asking for an example of a clearly correct call that was then overturned to a clearly wrong call by replay. 

[dave mcbride]

34 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not as strident as some on the Kincaid play, I do think there is a chance that gets overturned - but I think there is a better chance they stay with the call. While Kincaid doesn't drop the ball it is moving a lot and the point definitely comes into contact with the ground. That isn't a problem as long as the player is judged to have established clear possession but because of how much the ball was moving during the process I think they'd have said Kincaid hadn't and therefore the tip of the ball hitting the ground means the ground assisted him controlling the ball. It certainly isn't a catch by rule. It is a judgment call. Had it been called a catch on the field I think they'd have found insufficient evidence to overturn had Houston challenged, but given it was called incomplete I think there was enough doubt they'd have stayed with that call. 

 

EDIT: The Cook one for me is the one that would have been an entirely performative challenge that you had absolutely zero chance of winning. 

The ball moved from his grip right after he hit the ground out of bounds — i.e., he lost control even though it didn’t hit the ground. He regained control of the ball but did so while clearly out of bounds. By rule, it is not a catch and it was clear as day. “Going to the Ground: If a player is falling to the ground while catching the ball, they must maintain control of the ball after they land for it to be considered a catch.”

[djp14150]

17 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

This is my favorite example of gameday thread posters being out of their mind…would’ve unquestionably been a failed challenge then when our offense got the ball back with a minute left and one of the timeouts was wasted y’all would’ve complained about the challenge.  
 

we see those ball wobbling while going to the ground plays all the time around the nfl and they are never overturned 

You are just realizing this now…….this is universal.

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

McDermott needs more of these.  Cook was out of bounds but Kincaid could have been overturned.

Edited October 8 by JakeFrommStateFarm

[dave mcbride]

8 hours ago, Zag20 said:

Come on man, both announcers were saying it was a catch, which NEVER happens.  He grabs the balls with both hands and two feet in bounds. After that he basically has carte blanch to do whatever he wants with the ball going to the ground. That’s been the standard for like 8 years. It’s a coaching failure to not challenge that. 

The announcers were clearly unaware of the rule. Seriously.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

3 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

In the same game they would have automatically reviewed Coleman’s TD. Sure looked like he stepped OOB at least once, but they let it stand. 

You’re making conceptual mistakes here…the Coleman TD was RULED a td on the field.  So there needs to be OVERWHELMING evidence in the review process to overturn it.  Did his heel ever come down out of bounds in that infamous screenshot? It’s pretty much impossible to tell which is exactly what they concluded 
 

if it was ruled that he stepped out, it would’ve been tough to overturn also.  The ruling on the field completely shapes the review process because the evidence needed to overturn the initial call needs to be clear 

8 hours ago, Zag20 said:

Come on man, both announcers were saying it was a catch, which NEVER happens.  He grabs the balls with both hands and two feet in bounds. After that he basically has carte blanch to do whatever he wants with the ball going to the ground. That’s been the standard for like 8 years. It’s a coaching failure to not challenge that. 

But it was ruled incomplete on the field and you are glossing over that.  Can you make a case it should’ve been ruled a catch on the field?  Yea maybe.  But that is not at all the same thing as there’s enough evidence to overturn it in a challenge.  There’s absolutely no chance that call is overturned 

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

No they aren't,by rule it would have been a catch.

Anybody who's watched football over the last 20 years knows there's no way they're overturning that ruling on the field.  Even the announcers admitted at the end it wouldn't have been overturned after thinking it through.

[shane nelson]

Yes to both.

Kincaid was close enough to challenge and it was a huge play if we get the call.  (I have seen worse turned over)

While Cook's elbow was out, it appeared that his knee was close to being in bounds.  There was really nothing to lose since we called a timeout anyways and there was less than 3 minutes left in the game.

 

[BillsShredder83]

23 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

And they were wrong because they don't understand the rule. There was zero chance that would have been overturned.

I agree with the intent of what youre saying and the rule...... but timeout was not a game changer, and the challenge loss is nothing.

TO ME, THE BIGGEST POINT IS WITH THESE REFS.... WHO, FREAKING, KNOWS?!?!? Id say if u gave that plat to 10 crews, 2 would overturn it from incompetence. We see stupid isht like that alllllll the time!!!!

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

10 hours ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

No they aren't,by rule it would have been a catch.

Even if this by rule statement was correct, it’s not really relevant.  the rule was botched then on the field and when you go to review you need overwhelming evidence to overturn and absolutely could not do it on that play

 

that probably could’ve been ruled a catch and maybe it stands to a Texans challenge, but we were not winning that challenge