Thoughts on Yesterday's loss to Bengals

[Barry Sears]

I know most of today's conversations have involved possible trades and T.Y.'s reaction to a question from the media.  But, I haven't seen mention of one thing from yesterday's game that I expected to see today -- the Challenge on the play when the Bengals receiver fumbled the ball forward and it was caught in the air, but our player had a foot out of bounds.

 

I was very confused once the challenge was explained (poorly explained, I might add) by the referee, but also confused as to what exactly was being challenged. From the explanation, it seemed as though what Pagano explained he was challenging wasn't exactly what was ruled upon.  But, I'm open to being corrected by others on here.

 

The announcers kept saying that it was a fumble, but our player had a foot out of bounds when he caught it, so the Bengals keep the ball.  But, when the referee explained the ruling, he said it was a fumble and that our defender recovered the ball and was inbounds (although it was only one foot inbounds).  But, the Bengals maintained possession??  How can a player recover a fumble, have the referee say our guy recovered it, but the ball stay with the Bengals?  Or, did we win the challenge based upon what Pagano asked for, but he asked for the wrong thing?

 

My other thought has to do with our receivers dropping passes they have to catch as NFL receivers.  JB made some terrific passes, only to have Aiken and T.Y. drop them or have them go right through their hands.  Most of the time, they didn't have a defender right there blocking their vision or sticking a hand in to interfere with the catch, they just didn't catch very good passes that they should have caught.

 

It's tough to blame JB, he's still learning the system and learning to play QB in the NFL, but he obviously has talent and a great arm.  His veteran receivers are not doing their jobs.

 

I don't think we should trade T.Y., because I know he is very talented and we are short on talent with this team.  But, he needs to be accountable and take the blame when he's responsible for being part of a loss.

[buccolts]

11 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

Or, did we win the challenge based upon what Pagano asked for, but he asked for the wrong thing?

 

I'd have to watch the game again, but I'm pretty certain this is the case.

Perhaps he just blurted out his challenge, and wasn't specific enough with his concern.

It also appears we rush through these decisions. Get too exited.

Upstairs should have caught the fact that we recovered out of bounds.

[IinD]

My buddy sent me a screen shot of Chuck looking all excited when he thought we actually got the int. Pretty funny stuff.

 

Boger is a terrible ref. I still don't understand what he said or reviewed.

[throwing BBZ]

Those drops were bad. Great ball placement and timing.

 Henry is Back.
 Doyle was playing fast with great hands.
 Mingo was used well and was rather effective.

 Gore was running hard and fast, like a guy hoping to be wanted elsewhere.

  Henry, Woods, and Hankins are having fun out there.
  Brissett had big time accuracy in the short range game. How i have missed that since the .

[Aluckiswolverine]

Paganos reaction was both hilarious and excruciatingly painfull. Pretty much sums up Pagano as coach for me. 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, Barry Sears said:

The announcers kept saying that it was a fumble, but our player had a foot out of bounds when he caught it, so the Bengals keep the ball.  But, when the referee explained the ruling, he said it was a fumble and that our defender recovered the ball and was inbounds (although it was only one foot inbounds).  But, the Bengals maintained possession??  How can a player recover a fumble, have the referee say our guy recovered it, but the ball stay with the Bengals?  Or, did we win the challenge based upon what Pagano asked for, but he asked for the wrong thing?

 

 

Doesn't matter what the coach asked for, if the review shows that possession should change, then they'll change possession. 

 

The issue is that the Colts player didn't establish himself in bounds with possession of the ball. He only got one foot down in bounds. So the challenge was successful in that it determined the call on the field was incorrect, but the result of the play didn't change -- it was still Bengals' ball, at the spot where the Bengals player last had control, since the ball was fumbled out of bounds.

 

The angle showing the Colts player's foot out of bounds didn't get shown until Pagano had already thrown the flag, so he couldn't have known it would be upheld. And coaches typically have to make challenge decisions more quickly and with less information when they're on the road, so he was up the creek on that one. Probably should have held on to his last challenge with so little evidence, but I believe any challenge that has the potential to change possession is defensible.

 

The first challenge, we got robbed. I don't see how it isn't obvious that Hilton had control of the ball, established in bounds (one knee is established, he had two knees down in bounds), and maintained control through the contact with the ground. 

[Malakai432]

It was great to see Mack have a few catches after having a case of the dropsies.  I was kind of busy during some of the game so I hope he didn't have any bad drops.  

 

Henry Anderson and Mingo played great!  Green actually had some good tackles. 

 

With regards to the challenge I was kind of confused about that one at first also though people have cleared it up.  

[Narcosys]

I completely understood it. They ruled that it was a fumble. They also ruled that the recovering was out of bounds. You have to recover the ball, and have possession, before you go out of bounds. We did not. So when there is a fumble that goes out of bounds, fumbles cannot progress the ball and therefore Cinci got it back where they fumbled it.  

 

Not hard.

[Barry Sears]

2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

I completely understood it. They ruled that it was a fumble. They also ruled that the recovering was out of bounds. You have to recover the ball, and have possession, before you go out of bounds. We did not. So when there is a fumble that goes out of bounds, fumbles cannot progress the ball and therefore Cinci got it back where they fumbled it.  

 

Not hard.

I know all of that, was just confused on the referee's explanation.  He said we won the challenge, but when we didn't get the ball, I got confused, even though I know our guy was out of bounds.  As someone pointed out, Pagano had to challenge quickly, likely before a replay was put on the video board.

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, Barry Sears said:

I know all of that, was just confused on the referee's explanation.  He said we won the challenge, but when we didn't get the ball, I got confused, even though I know our guy was out of bounds.  As someone pointed out, Pagano had to challenge quickly, likely before a replay was put on the video board.

Ya we won the fact that it was actually a fumble, however it didn't matter because of possession out of bounds.