Not challenging Dalton sideline catch or Cook TD

[HansLanda]

2 minutes ago, balln said:

End this thread. None were getting overturned. Ppl complaining about “can’t take timeouts “ with you. Yes well you do LOSE a challenge. And as we know. You may need it at the critical end of game !

 

Critical when trying to ice their kicker or something? 

[BarleyNY]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

He clearly landed out of bounds. They were 0.0%.

Because refs are infallible? Or are you saying that it wasn’t worth risking nothing on the off chance we get the call overturned and maintain the TO? 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

7 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

You're positive? I was 95% sure it was the Kincaid catch and regardless, you still challenge it

100% positive and no you don’t.  This is like football 101 🤣 it is kind of surprising.  Getting the ball back with three timeouts instead of two with limited time in a half is huge and teams constantly throw points away in those situations by blowing timeouts earlier in the game.  All these terrible end game situations we have had are in part brought to you by the opposing coach not blowing timeouts earlier in the half 

 

 

[May Day 10]

The Kincaid one would have been a foolish challenge and we would be killing McDermott for it.  Incomplete/out of bounds, clear as day

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Because refs are infallible? Or are you saying that it wasn’t worth risking nothing on the off chance we get the call overturned and maintain the TO? 

 

Im saying it would have been entirely performative. Sure there was limited risk to throwing it. But there was zero chance of winning it. A 5 year old who has never watched football could tell you he was out of bounds.

[Big Turk]

33 minutes ago, Brand J said:

McD said in the presser he didn’t get to see either on replay, given we were in the Texans house, so he deferred to his people whether to challenge or not. They told him not to.

 

His "people" being John Parry, an NFL official for 18 years, including a referee for 11 years.  He was the referee in 2 SuperBowls as well.  Pretty sure he is far more qualified than anyone on this board as to what should be challenged.

Edited 3 hours ago by Big Turk

[BarleyNY]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Im saying it would have been entirely performative. Sure there was limited risk to throwing it. But there was zero chance of winning it. A 5 year old who has never watched football could tell you he was out of bounds.

And anyone who understands basic logo can tell you that you throw the challenge flag because the cost to you is zero and the potential benefit is large, even if the odds are small. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, BarleyNY said:

And anyone who understands basic logo can tell you that you throw the challenge flag because the cost to you is zero and the potential benefit is large, even if the odds are small. 

 

The odds aren't small. They are non-existant. It was like being one number away from winning the lottery. It was close but you were clearly one number away. You can take your ticket in and ask the man to check it and he will say "ahhh sorry bud you are one number away."

 

Would have been performative theatrics and nothing more.

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

And anyone who understands basic logo can tell you that you throw the challenge flag because the cost to you is zero and the potential benefit is large, even if the odds are small. 

 

The odds weren't small, they were zero.

 

In fact, If the officials ruled Kincaid's play a catch and Houston threw a challenge flag, it likely would have gotten overturned in their favor. Obvious the ball moved and there was no way that was going to be called a catch.

Edited 3 hours ago by Big Turk

[BarleyNY]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

The odds aren't small. They are non-existant. It was like being one number away from winning the lottery. It was close but you were clearly one number away. You can take your ticket in and ask the man to check it and he will say "ahhh sorry bud you are one number away."

 

Would have been performative theatrics and nothing more.

 

Now you’re just being silly. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Now you’re just being silly. 

 

I am not. He landed clearly on the white. To argue otherwise is nonsensical.

Edited 3 hours ago by GunnerBill

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not. He landed clearly on the white. To argue otherwise is nonsensical.

 

On the Cook play?  That was so obvious I cannot believe anyone would even bring up that we should have challenged it. Like a 5th grader could have told you he didn't make the catch in bounds.

Edited 3 hours ago by Big Turk

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

IMO we should have challenged then both.  They were 2 of only a few good offensive plays we made the whole game, and we never needed those timeouts 

 

Wasnt the cook one in the field of play and not for a TD?  Either way, Cook was 100000000% out of bounds, that would have been a terrible challenge.  

 

But the Kincaid one should have been challenged.  It may not have gotten overturned, but it at least had a shot to and considering the impact it could have had, I would have challenged it and lived with it if it didn't get overturned.

[balln]

3 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

On the Cook play?  That was so obvious I cannot believe anyone would even bring up that we should have challenged it.

Yea this is a silly thread at this point . Maybe Kincaid is “close”

 

but I actually agreed, for once w McD, neither were worthy to throw a red flag 

 

doesn’t matter - I think they lost bc we didn’t call a TO when Mitch played one snap. 
 

And then did nothing w two turnovers on O

Edited 3 hours ago by balln

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Wasnt the cook one in the field of play and not for a TD?  Either way, Cook was 100000000% out of bounds, that would have been a terrible challenge.  

 

But the Kincaid one should have been challenged.  It may not have gotten overturned, but it at least had a shot to and considering the impact it could have had, I would have challenged it and lived with it if it didn't get overturned.

 

Alpha, I am 100% with you on all of this. 

[BarleyNY]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not. He landed clearly on the white. To argue otherwise is nonsensical.

Because NFL officiating never makes a mistake? 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, balln said:

doesn’t matter - I think they lost bc we didn’t call a TO when Mitch played one snap. 

 

Just looked back at that Allen get his helmet like a second before the ball is snapped. I doubt anyone even knows he is out of the tent at that point. He is sprinting to get his helmet back but the playcall is definitely already in and they are at the line.

Just now, BarleyNY said:

Because NFL officiating never makes a mistake? 

 

A mistake of that magnitude? No. He is very clearly on the white. You could ask 100 NFL refs to look at that play and overturn a no catch and not 1 would do it.

[dma0034]

They should have challenged both for different reasons:

 

1. Kincaid was close, I doubt the refs overturn the ruling on the field but it was close enough

 

2. Cook was 100% out but the Bills took a timeout anyways so you might as well throw the flag and who knows? Maybe you get exceptionally lucky 

[Big Turk]

8 minutes ago, balln said:

Yea this is a silly thread at this point . Maybe Kincaid is “close”

 

but I actually agreed, for once w McD, neither were worthy to throw a red flag 

 

doesn’t matter - I think they lost bc we didn’t call a TO when Mitch played one snap. 
 

And then did nothing w two turnovers on O

 

You aren't agreeing with McD, you were actually agreeing with John Parry, a long time ex NFL official including 11 years as a ref that included 2 super bowls. He is in charge of telling McD when to challenge and when not to.

[May Day 10]

Kincaid wasnt close.  The odds of an overturn were zero, and it is pretty black and white.  It would be egregious and incorrect to overturn the call on the field.  It was clear the ball was shifting in Kincaid's hands, he didn't have possession when he was in the air, after his feet were in contact in bounds.  

 

Coaches deserve criticism yesterday for sure.  This is not a topic that criticism is warranted.  I'd rather not burn a challenge in the first half hoping the referee makes some sort of wild error

 

 

 

I didn't pay enough attention to the replays of the cook play.  My first instinct was it wasn't really close enough to watch the replays closely (I was in a restaurant with friends)

Edited 3 hours ago by May Day 10