Not challenging Dalton sideline catch or Cook TD

[Big Turk]

Just now, dma0034 said:

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 

 

C'mon man, this is not Madden.

 

The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

Edited October 7 by Big Turk

[BarleyNY]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

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.

LOL. Now that’s funny. I’ve seen far worse calls. 

[dma0034]

Just now, Big Turk said:

 

C'mon man, this is not Madden.

 

What do you mean? There is 0 downside of challenging the Cook catch when you took a timeout anyways and didn't use a challenge yet

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

LOL. Now that’s funny. I’ve seen far worse calls. 

 

Only ones open to interpretation maybe. There is no interpretation involved when a player is clearly out of bounds.

[dma0034]

2 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

 

I disagree completely. I think the refs would have went with the ruling on the play stands whether it was ruled a catch or not. Even the announcers were commenting on it. 

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

 

What do you mean? There is 0 downside of challenging the Cook catch when you took a timeout anyways and didn't use a challenge yet

 

Always a downside of wasting a challenge because you never know when you might need them. I've seen back to back plays get challenged.

 

You don't challenge plays when they are obviously not going to be overturned. As a fan watching it was obvious both were correct calls.

 

McD has an ex NFL official and long time referree telling him whether to challenge or not. Pretty sure he has a much better handle on this than any posters.

 

 

2 minutes ago, dma0034 said:

 

I disagree completely. I think the refs would have went with the ruling on the play stands whether it was ruled a catch or not. Even the announcers were commenting on it. 

 

Nah.

 

The ball is moving out of bounds.

 

That's not a catch. Have seen this reversed numerous times when ruled a catch on plays where the movement was far less obvious than that.

 

The only way that play would have stood is if he regained control in bounds,got two feet down and then fell to the ground

Edited October 7 by Big Turk

[Livinginthepast]

Cook was clearly out of bounds and there was no chance that was getting overturned. Kincaid was more winnable but not by much as it was called a no catch first  and there was evidence for and against it being a catch. But yes the point made earlier that McD called a TO anyway without challenging it? was just dumb.

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, Beast said:

And we would have lost both challenges.

 

And that’s OK.

 

This is a point that many people miss. It is okay to challenge a call pivotal call in the first half when your offense is reeling even if you think you’ll lose it.

 

Why? It’s simple logic.

 

The upside is that you get a key first down in field goal territory. 

 

The downside is you might lose a timeout that you didn’t use (we had 3 timeouts left with only a few minutes remaining in the half). 

 

It’s OK to take that risk there.

 

 

[HomeskillitMoorman]

2 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

The thing that infuriated me on the Kinkcaid no catch, is that McDermott took a timeout right after. If you’re going to blow a timeout, challenge the play. You at least have a small chance at upside and you get a much longer break than the standard 30 second timeout. 

McD has done this sooooo many times in his 8 years here. It’s hard to comprehend how dumb of a Head Coach he truly is and how little effort he puts into preparation

[CA OC Bills Fan]

26 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Always a downside of wasting a challenge because you never know when you might need them. I've seen back to back plays get challenged.

 

You don't challenge plays when they are obviously not going to be overturned. As a fan watching it was obvious both were correct calls.

 

McD has an ex NFL official and long time referree telling him whether to challenge or not. Pretty sure he has a much better handle on this than any posters.

 

Although I see no chance that the Cook one would have been overturned, I said to the group I was watching with the same thing DMA034 was saying. I'm going by memory, but there was around 3:30 left in the 4th quarter, meaning we had around 90 seconds to use our challenges. We had used 0 challenges up until then. McD. called timeout. I understand what you're saying but to think we were going to want to use another two challenges in the next 90 seconds seems so unlikely that I thought, "why not challenge?" We'd still be left with two timeouts and we'd have one more challenge in case something did come up in the next 90 seconds.

[Einstein]

30 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

C'mon man, this is not Madden.

 

The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

 

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned.

 

Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks.

 

Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker.

 

Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat.

On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. 

 

 

And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

49 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

C'mon man, this is not Madden.

 

The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

when we have these embarrassing losses several people look for every little thing to second guess, but cold reality is we were outplayed and out coached.  That’s it, and our WR’s stink.

[strive_for_five_guy]

31 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

And that’s OK.

 

This is a point that many people miss. It is okay to challenge a call pivotal call in the first half when your offense is reeling even if you think you’ll lose it.

 

Why? It’s simple logic.

 

The upside is that you get a key first down in field goal territory. 

 

The downside is you might lose a timeout that you didn’t use (we had 3 timeouts left with only a few minutes remaining in the half). 

 

It’s OK to take that risk there.

 

 

Another downside of challenging in the first half is also that you are left with only one challenge the rest of the game, rather than two.

[Einstein]

8 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

Another downside of challenging in the first half is also that you are left with only one challenge the rest of the game, rather than two.

 

McDermott has coached over 100 games.

Take a guess how many times he has challenged twice in one game.

[strive_for_five_guy]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

McDermott has coached over 100 games.

Take a guess how many times he has challenged twice in one game.

Three times by my count.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 hour ago, dma0034 said:

 

What do you mean? There is 0 downside of challenging the Cook catch when you took a timeout anyways and didn't use a challenge yet

That one makes more sense to question…I don’t think the play was even close personally and it absolutely would not have been overturned and the timeout taken was more coincidence than anything…can’t remember the exact circumstance because it didn’t seem very controversial to me at the time 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

It actually didn’t move at all as he went out of bounds. It shifted when he hit the turf. Either way, probably not getting overturned.

 

Speaking of Kincaid, he kinda sucks.

 

Woofta that feels good to finally let that out. I’ve bottled that up for a year now. He is super underwhelming as a first round pick. He has dropped or bobbled multiple balls that hit his hands, and he sucks major donkey cahones as a blocker.

 

Multiple times we have plays set up that would go for big gains, but Kincaid gets beat.

On this play, Cook has a legitimate chance of scoring if Kincaid doesn’t get suplexed. He would have had to make 1 defender miss. 

 

 

And here is another screen where Allen gets sacked because Kincaid gets beat so bad that Curtis Samuel would have been crushed if Allen threw it. Lucky he didn’t get called for holding to boot.

 

 

He’s a good passing threat imo but that definitely sheds some light on the screen situation…I could not figure out how we had numbers and were getting beat so badly every time lol I think every one of those screen calls seemed to be correct but we just could not execute at all and I just didn’t have the heart to rewatch them 😂

Edited October 8 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

47 minutes ago, CA OC Bills Fan said:

Although I see no chance that the Cook one would have been overturned, I said to the group I was watching with the same thing DMA034 was saying. I'm going by memory, but there was around 3:30 left in the 4th quarter, meaning we had around 90 seconds to use our challenges. We had used 0 challenges up until then. McD. called timeout. I understand what you're saying but to think we were going to want to use another two challenges in the next 90 seconds seems so unlikely that I thought, "why not challenge?" We'd still be left with two timeouts and we'd have one more challenge in case something did come up in the next 90 seconds.

Can’t remember the premise because I genuinely didn’t even think that play was close/controversial but I don’t know that they knew they’d need to use a timeout on the next play would be my guess.  If we called a timeout deciding if we should challenge it’s certainly odd and makes sense to talk about but the result would’ve been the same 

[Freddie's Dead]

Many posts in this thread use only one criteria for a challenge, whether or not the challenge will succeed.  That's faulty thinking.  On Cook's catch, you don't challenge that, he's clearly OB.  But Reuben?  You challenge that all day.  Why? 

 

It's a critical play, a 3rd down catch for a first down, when we're trailing by a lot and nothing is going right.  NFL referees do weird stuff all the time (this ####### thought we were playing basketball).  The ball can move as long as you have both hands on it and never lose control.  He never lost control.  As many have said, even the announcers thought it was a catch.  It was certainly worth challenging, since we're punting anyway if we lose the challenge.

 

It was worth the risk.  Sometimes you have to throw the flag, even if you don't see a replay.  Unfortunately, McDummy throws the flag for 9 yard incomplete passes on first down.  He needed a guy like Perry, but Perry let him down here.

Edited October 8 by Freddie's Dead

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

C'mon man, this is not Madden.

 

The Kincaid play would have been overturned if it was ruled a catch on the field and Houston challenged. It wasn't "close", the ball was clearly moving as he went out of bounds and that is not going to be ruled as a catch.

As gung ho as I am that that was objectively the right call to not challenge the Kincaid play, I think if that’s called a catch on the field it might’ve stood.  Absolutely no shot it’s an overturned no catch though.  Refs kind of boned us on that one that call could’ve gone either way on the field…I think if we’re at home that’s probably ruled a catch 

Edited October 8 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Einstein]

12 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

Three times by my count.

 

There ya go.

 

Now how many times has he challenged 3? (Meaning won 2 and used the 3rd)?