menu
Logo
dark_mode
Logo
dark_mode
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: 3 Key Plays
Page: 1 of 1
BobcatSports
General User
BS
Member Since: 2/2/2006
Post Count: 1,119
BS
mail
BobcatSports
mail
Posted: 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.
mid70sbobcat
General User
M70
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 823
M70
mail
mid70sbobcat
mail
Posted: 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.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,269
C71
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 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.
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,753
SBH
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 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.
Athens
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,496
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 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.
Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Fiami @ Peden with 25,086 fans
2023 10-7 near shutout of Iowa State @ Solich Field
2025 17-10 defeat of WVU @ Peden in front of 26,740
mid70sbobcat
General User
M70
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 823
M70
mail
mid70sbobcat
mail
Posted: 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.
Andrew Ruck
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,717
mail
Andrew Ruck
mail
Posted: 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.
Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,366
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 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.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,820
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 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?
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,977
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 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.
The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,366
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 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.
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,620
V
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 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.
BobcatSports
General User
BS
Member Since: 2/2/2006
Post Count: 1,119
BS
mail
BobcatSports
mail
Posted: 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.
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,366
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 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.
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,597
DFC
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 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.
spongeBOB CATpants
General User
Member Since: 8/16/2016
Post Count: 1,366
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
mail
Posted: 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.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 8/31/2005
Post Count: 10,595
LC
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 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?
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,620
V
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 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?
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 8/31/2005
Post Count: 10,595
LC
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 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".
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 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.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 8/31/2005
Post Count: 10,595
LC
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 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.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,860
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 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
View Other Ohio Football Topics
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Saturday, October 17, 2026
chevron_right
Who's Online

There are 42 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

40 Guests
2 Registered Users:
bobcatsquared , Mike Johnson