Jump to content

No challenge on Tolbert TD


OhDozeBills

Recommended Posts

also thought this was any easy call that they got right. the final replay they showed at the stadium cleared it up pretty well. my buddy sitting beside me was a broncos fan and agreed it wasn't a catch.

 

I just wasn't really surprised by either play. I thought they got them right.

 

I was glad he didn't. if you understand the rules of what a catch needs to be now it was a clear incompletion.... that comes off as me being a know it all. but it seemed really clear to me.

 

Yeah the whole going to the ground was what caused it to be incomplete but if it is consistently applied then Tolbert is a non-catch as well. Think Calvin Johnson a couple of years ago on a catch IN the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

DiMarco's bread and butter is that catch. No idea why it wasn't him there.

I'm still shocked how much Tolbert gets the ball. He was out there to start drives! Sure seems Shady has been coming out a lot. Often times one play and out. Wish they would give Banyard some chances, but apparently he's not contributing much on ST to be active on game day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DiMarco's bread and butter is that catch. No idea why it wasn't him there.

Denver would have expected a pass to DiMarco if he was in. Tolbert is not known for his pass catching as he proved again on Sunday.

 

McD probably felt it wasn't worth possibly losing a timeout at that moment, wasn't it a 1st down play? If it was a 3rd down play I think it would've been challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nop, it was the same as the Sanders Catch / no Catch... he didn´t complete the catch as he felt down and lost the ball.

 

 

I thought both of them were catches. In both cases, the receiver caught the ball, established possession, turned, and took two steps. To me, turning and taking two steps constitutes a "football move". Neither receiver was making a diving catch, and it's the diving catch that requires the receiver to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

 

At least the refs were consistent and called them both incomplete. It actually worked in the Bills favor, since we scored a TD on the next play, where Denver's no-catch ended a drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nop, it was the same as the Sanders Catch / no Catch... he didn´t complete the catch as he felt down and lost the ball.

 

For me it was a good no challenge.

 

But what I like to see there is the referees call the TD so it would have to be reviewed. I think all controversial calls in the end zone should be given the proper review, not just scoring plays.

I agree for the most part - I think they need to review in either case. The issue is if they rule a TD just to allow the review - it is hard to overturn - so you are benefiting one outcome over another.

 

I think the ruling on the field stands and a challenge there becomes a wasted timeout - which impacts our scoring drive before the half and therefore this small decision has major impact later in the game.

 

Another good decision by McD - I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I though the ball clearly broke the plane before he started to lose control.

Totally irrelevant as he started going to the ground on his own and therefore to complete the catch he needed to possess the ball through the ground.

 

Now if it had been ruled a catch and a fumble by Tolbert - then the breaking of the plane by the ball would have mattered, but since it was ruled incomplete - I do not think they overturn that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was everyone else screaming for this play to be challenged? A clear TD, Tolbert had total possession when the call broke the plane and somehow the Bills don't challenge. They wind up getting a bit lucky on the next play with the tipped ball right into Holmes hands.

Anyway, haven't seen this discussed since it didn't cost us, but this could of been a game changing decision not to challenge. Makes me a bit nervous about their challenge process moving forward.

Didn't look clear at all. Just as much chance it's called a fumbl out of the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was close enough, a potential scoring play, brought up a third down, and was in the first half (so losing a TO shouldn't have been a consideration)-- and so should have been challenged. Bad decision. You have to challenge there.

 

I disagree with this completely- the timeout is always a consideration.

 

Think about the impact if he challenges and loses the challenge there.

 

We get the ball back with 40 seconds and 1 timeout or we get the ball with about 20 seconds and 2 timeouts left and we basically kneel and let the half end - that potentially changes the entire outlook of the game.

 

Instead we have 42 seconds - 2 timeouts and we go for points. That decision had huge implications for a replay that gets overturned very rarely and this year even less than past years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the ball breaks the plane the play is over in this case though. He wasn't going to the ground when he caught it and took several steps while cutting toward the goal. The announcers thought it would be called a TD when they saw the replay. Either way, nothing is cut and dried with NFL officiating and not challenging could have been costly on the scoreboard.

 

If it was a run or return of some sort only, its a TD. As it was a reception he needed to maintain control through his falling to the ground. So would have been ruled as called on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...