menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: 3 Key Plays
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
BobcatSports
12/3/2022 3:32 PM
1. The fumble recovery that wasn’t on Toledo’s opening Drive led to Toledo TD.

2. Failure to stop Rockets on 3rd and 20 late in first half backed up in the own end of the field. Drove the length of field and kicked FG.

3. Near interception deep in Toledo territory early in 2nd half that would given us short field and a huge momentum turn.
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
12/3/2022 4:18 PM
The 4th play I felt was big was when with 5+ minutes left in 2nd quarter we were moving the ball near midfield nicely on the ground. I was hoping they'd grind it out and either get 3 or 7 with little time left. The long pass that was an INT was a 6 to 10 point reversal since they got a FG.
mail
person
Casper71
12/3/2022 4:35 PM
The bottom line was Toledo and finn made all the big plays Some calls went against us. I doubt that we had one play from scrimmage over 20 yards. They may have had at least five or six.
mail
person
SBH
12/3/2022 5:19 PM
mid70sbobcat wrote:expand_more
The 4th play I felt was big was when with 5+ minutes left in 2nd quarter we were moving the ball near midfield nicely on the ground. I was hoping they'd grind it out and either get 3 or 7 with little time left. The long pass that was an INT was a 6 to 10 point reversal since they got a FG.
Play of the game.
mail
TWT
12/4/2022 2:26 AM
Mine was that bad ref call early in the 4th where Ohio had Finn's knee down and scrambled out of it. That was the possession UT went up two scores. Toledo improbable scrambles all game to keep drives alive.

At the end of the day however take away a couple decisive plays Toledo still wins by 3 or 7 points. Toledo was in control the whole game so no more than very slight chance was out there to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The entire second half I kept asking myself what Ohio's path to victory was if they can't move the chains.
mail
person
mid70sbobcat
12/4/2022 10:41 AM
Campus Flow wrote:expand_more
Mine was that bad ref call early in the 4th where Ohio had Finn's knee down and scrambled out of it. That was the possession UT went up two scores. Toledo improbable scrambles all game to keep drives alive.

At the end of the day however take away a couple decisive plays Toledo still wins by 3 or 7 points. Toledo was in control the whole game so no more than very slight chance was out there to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The entire second half I kept asking myself what Ohio's path to victory was if they can't move the chains.

One play that could have made a difference, even given the imbalance in stats, was the chance Alvin Floyd for the INT.
mail
Andrew Ruck
12/4/2022 5:45 PM
3rd and 20 was massive. We were heading to get the ball back with a short field going into the half and getting the ball to start the 2nd. Instead they grind their way to a long scoring drive.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/5/2022 10:44 AM
If the refs gave us that fumble recovery, I truly think this game could've turned into a potential blowout. Absolutely crushing.

I don't see how there was any doubt that was a fumble + recovery by Ohio. Even the announcers were 100% confident that was Ohio's ball.
mail
UpSan Bobcat
12/5/2022 1:01 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
If the refs gave us that fumble recovery, I truly think this game could've turned into a potential blowout. Absolutely crushing.

I don't see how there was any doubt that was a fumble + recovery by Ohio. Even the announcers were 100% confident that was Ohio's ball.
I've only seen the replay shown in the stadium, but this is what I've heard on this one, that everyone else seeing multiple replays was certain Ohio would get the ball.

However, on the run by Finn when Ohio challenged him being down, the replay "confirmed" that he was not down. After the first call, I'm not sure I trust that to be the case, so for those who saw that one on replay, was Finn really not down?
mail
OhioCatFan
12/5/2022 1:12 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
If the refs gave us that fumble recovery, I truly think this game could've turned into a potential blowout. Absolutely crushing.

I don't see how there was any doubt that was a fumble + recovery by Ohio. Even the announcers were 100% confident that was Ohio's ball.
I've only seen the replay shown in the stadium, but this is what I've heard on this one, that everyone else seeing multiple replays was certain Ohio would get the ball.

However, on the run by Finn when Ohio challenged him being down, the replay "confirmed" that he was not down. After the first call, I'm not sure I trust that to be the case, so for those who saw that one on replay, was Finn really not down?
I was at the stadium too, and when I looked at the Toledo players after that fumble and while the replay was being conducted their body language seemed to indicate that many of them also thought it was a fumble.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/5/2022 1:29 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
If the refs gave us that fumble recovery, I truly think this game could've turned into a potential blowout. Absolutely crushing.

I don't see how there was any doubt that was a fumble + recovery by Ohio. Even the announcers were 100% confident that was Ohio's ball.
I've only seen the replay shown in the stadium, but this is what I've heard on this one, that everyone else seeing multiple replays was certain Ohio would get the ball.

However, on the run by Finn when Ohio challenged him being down, the replay "confirmed" that he was not down. After the first call, I'm not sure I trust that to be the case, so for those who saw that one on replay, was Finn really not down?
I watched on TV, it did not look like Finn was down. Was hoping we would get a makeup call there.
mail
person
Victory
12/5/2022 1:38 PM
Guys, It WAS a fumble. The refs initially missed that call but I don't think after watching the replay that the fact that it was a fumble was in dispute by anyone. Ohio just failed to recover it before going out of bounds. People claiming that it was a fumble and thus it was Bobcat's ball are not looking at the right thing. The announcers at first were looking at if it was a fumble and, yes, were 100% sure it was a fumble. But then when they looked at the recovery they saw Ohio was out of bounds before clear control was established. That call had to stand. Even if it had been ruled a fumble on the field that was recovered by Ohio then I think there would have been enough evidence to change it to a fumble out of bounds.

If you go back and look and see a call that should have been overturned then you are only watching for a fumble and not also watching for a clear recovery.
mail
person
BobcatSports
12/5/2022 1:45 PM
I thought the announcers cleared it up that Finn DID fumble BUT OHIO did not gain clear recovery before touching the out of bounds marker thus NO recovery still Toledo ball. I also thought the various replays confirmed that Finn’s knee nor shin touched the ground and therefore was not sacked for loss. This was just a game where we needed ALL the breaks to go our way and none of them did.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/5/2022 3:09 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
Guys, It WAS a fumble. The refs initially missed that call but I don't think after watching the replay that the fact that it was a fumble was in dispute by anyone. Ohio just failed to recover it before going out of bounds. People claiming that it was a fumble and thus it was Bobcat's ball are not looking at the right thing. The announcers at first were looking at if it was a fumble and, yes, were 100% sure it was a fumble. But then when they looked at the recovery they saw Ohio was out of bounds before clear control was established. That call had to stand. Even if it had been ruled a fumble on the field that was recovered by Ohio then I think there would have been enough evidence to change it to a fumble out of bounds.

If you go back and look and see a call that should have been overturned then you are only watching for a fumble and not also watching for a clear recovery.
I disagree. The refs confirmed the call on the field was correct, which was that the player was ruled down by contact before the ball came loose. I don't believe the call on the field was ruled a fumble. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wouldn't they have clarified that the ball was fumbled but recovered out of bounds if that was the conclusion in the replay booth?

All they said was that the call on the field was confirmed. I had some adult sodas prior to the game so please correct me if my memory is fuzzy.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
12/5/2022 4:16 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
Guys, It WAS a fumble. The refs initially missed that call but I don't think after watching the replay that the fact that it was a fumble was in dispute by anyone. Ohio just failed to recover it before going out of bounds. People claiming that it was a fumble and thus it was Bobcat's ball are not looking at the right thing. The announcers at first were looking at if it was a fumble and, yes, were 100% sure it was a fumble. But then when they looked at the recovery they saw Ohio was out of bounds before clear control was established. That call had to stand. Even if it had been ruled a fumble on the field that was recovered by Ohio then I think there would have been enough evidence to change it to a fumble out of bounds.

If you go back and look and see a call that should have been overturned then you are only watching for a fumble and not also watching for a clear recovery.
I disagree. The refs confirmed the call on the field was correct, which was that the player was ruled down by contact before the ball came loose. I don't believe the call on the field was ruled a fumble. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wouldn't they have clarified that the ball was fumbled but recovered out of bounds if that was the conclusion in the replay booth?

All they said was that the call on the field was confirmed. I had some adult sodas prior to the game so please correct me if my memory is fuzzy.
Yes, I remember it exactly the same. After watching the replay on tv, it's clear the call had to be that there was no possession by Bryce Houston before going OB. The refs could have explained that rather than just saying the call was confirmed. the fumble was clear as day and the refs only said the call on the field was confirmed. If they correctly ruled it a fumble then toledo would have had the ball a yard further up the field. The refs ate it on that whole process.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
12/5/2022 4:28 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
Guys, It WAS a fumble. The refs initially missed that call but I don't think after watching the replay that the fact that it was a fumble was in dispute by anyone. Ohio just failed to recover it before going out of bounds. People claiming that it was a fumble and thus it was Bobcat's ball are not looking at the right thing. The announcers at first were looking at if it was a fumble and, yes, were 100% sure it was a fumble. But then when they looked at the recovery they saw Ohio was out of bounds before clear control was established. That call had to stand. Even if it had been ruled a fumble on the field that was recovered by Ohio then I think there would have been enough evidence to change it to a fumble out of bounds.

If you go back and look and see a call that should have been overturned then you are only watching for a fumble and not also watching for a clear recovery.
I disagree. The refs confirmed the call on the field was correct, which was that the player was ruled down by contact before the ball came loose. I don't believe the call on the field was ruled a fumble. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wouldn't they have clarified that the ball was fumbled but recovered out of bounds if that was the conclusion in the replay booth?

All they said was that the call on the field was confirmed. I had some adult sodas prior to the game so please correct me if my memory is fuzzy.
Yes, I remember it exactly the same. After watching the replay on tv, it's clear the call had to be that there was no possession by Bryce Houston before going OB. The refs could have explained that rather than just saying the call was confirmed. the fumble was clear as day and the refs only said the call on the field was confirmed. If they correctly ruled it a fumble then toledo would have had the ball a yard further up the field. The refs ate it on that whole process.
Ok thanks for the confirmation, I was so pissed at that moment that I thought I remembered exactly how it played out.

IMO we recovered the fumble as well. If that was the component of the play that was really being reviewed, maybe they felt there wasn't enough evidence we had control of the ball prior to rolling out of bounds?

IMO, I thought we fell on it inbounds as the defender was rolling out of bounds.
mail
person
L.C.
12/5/2022 6:26 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
3rd and 20 was massive. We were heading to get the ball back with a short field going into the half and getting the ball to start the 2nd. Instead they grind their way to a long scoring drive.

I was pretty shocked when Ohio only rushed 3 on that play. That hasn't been how they had been doing things, and it didn't turn out well. This play did leave me with a question for BTC, however. After the play, Toledo lined up for another play, and was called for a 5 yard penalty. After that penalty, they went back and reviewed whether the Toledo player had, in fact, actually gained the first down. I thought that after another play has been initiated, you could no longer review the preceding one. I'm guessing that since there was no snap, only a penalty, it didn't negate the possibility of review of the prior play?
mail
person
Victory
12/5/2022 6:37 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
3rd and 20 was massive. We were heading to get the ball back with a short field going into the half and getting the ball to start the 2nd. Instead they grind their way to a long scoring drive.

I was pretty shocked when Ohio only rushed 3 on that play. That hasn't been how they had been doing things, and it didn't turn out well. This play did leave me with a question for BTC, however. After the play, Toledo lined up for another play, and was called for a 5 yard penalty. After that penalty, they went back and reviewed whether the Toledo player had, in fact, actually gained the first down. I thought that after another play has been initiated, you could no longer review the preceding one. I'm guessing that since there was no snap, only a penalty, it didn't negate the possibility of review of the prior play?
If this weren't the case could I prevent you from reviewing my actually out of bounds game winning 50 yard touchdown reception by walking up to the corner that covered me and punching him?
mail
person
L.C.
12/5/2022 9:23 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
If this weren't the case could I prevent you from reviewing my actually out of bounds game winning 50 yard touchdown reception by walking up to the corner that covered me and punching him?

Clearly, no. But Ohio and Toledo both lined up for the next play, and Toledo actually snapped it, but was called for illegal procedure. I would have thought that that was a "play".
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/5/2022 10:40 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
If this weren't the case could I prevent you from reviewing my actually out of bounds game winning 50 yard touchdown reception by walking up to the corner that covered me and punching him?

Clearly, no. But Ohio and Toledo both lined up for the next play, and Toledo actually snapped it, but was called for illegal procedure. I would have thought that that was a "play".
It’s not a play and it’s not a snap. And illegal procedure is a dead ball foul, therefore you do not have a legal snap and you can review the play.
mail
person
L.C.
12/6/2022 1:08 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
If this weren't the case could I prevent you from reviewing my actually out of bounds game winning 50 yard touchdown reception by walking up to the corner that covered me and punching him?

Clearly, no. But Ohio and Toledo both lined up for the next play, and Toledo actually snapped it, but was called for illegal procedure. I would have thought that that was a "play".
It’s not a play and it’s not a snap. And illegal procedure is a dead ball foul, therefore you do not have a legal snap and you can review the play.

Thanks, BTC. I presumed that that was the explanation, but it seemed odd.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/6/2022 8:38 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
If this weren't the case could I prevent you from reviewing my actually out of bounds game winning 50 yard touchdown reception by walking up to the corner that covered me and punching him?

Clearly, no. But Ohio and Toledo both lined up for the next play, and Toledo actually snapped it, but was called for illegal procedure. I would have thought that that was a "play".
It’s not a play and it’s not a snap. And illegal procedure is a dead ball foul, therefore you do not have a legal snap and you can review the play.

Thanks, BTC. I presumed that that was the explanation, but it seemed odd.
Not something you see often.
Showing Messages: 1 - 22 of 22
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)