I know it turned out great when Levingston returned the punt from the 1 yard line for a touchdown.
But who thinks he should have returned the ball in the first place (the alternative was giving up the single point and taking the ball at the 35)? The game was 11-10 in the second half at that point and field position was very vital. He also narrowly missed being tackled inside the 10 yard line.
I was cheering for Toronto for obvious reasons and when he caught it at the 1 I said 'what are you doing' then that changed to 'I guess if you're going to do that it's alright'
On the other hand I didn't mind the missed field goal return because he had a big opening and was able to knock a lot of time off the clock (which was the most important (a touchdown was just a bonus)).
The first return was great. The second was just playing off of the laziness of the Stamps. Some of the Stamps were already making their way back to the bench as Levingston was being approaced in the endzone. I beleive that may have been planned. The blocking was all set up for him the whole way down the sideline.
I don't think that was pinball's call. I think Levingston just saw the opportunity and went for it. He was probably told to waist as much time as possible then give up the point. When he saw that half of Calgary's line was walking away and he was in hot pursuit by a couple linemen he ran for it. I was laughing my ass off. Also, he caught it in the endzone, not the 1 yard line. Had he caught it on the one, he would have given up a safety by going back into the endzone. Glad it worked for them. Made an interesting fourth quarter even more interesting. Also kept the Riders not too far back.
Now I could be way wrong on this, but if the ball is caught on the 1, and the returning willingly takes it into the endzone, that is not a single, but a safety. So, I agree with ro1313 above, that it wasn't an option.
It was interesting on the FG return to see and hear a number of people in my secition (2nd deck, right above where that play happened) yelling at Bashir to take the knee. I thought it was a good idea to run as much time off the clock as possible, seeing how the Argos had a point to give, but the end result was even better than that.
Finally, Levingston almost never concedes a point, much to the chagrin of the Toronto coaching staff.
I'm not talking about the missed field goal return, only the punt return.
And I know that if the ball is caught on the one and taken in it's a safety.
In this scenario though if he would have let it bounce it would have gone into the endzone (probably landing on the goalline and bouncing in) thereby giving up the single but being able to take the ball at the 35.
The score in the game is 11-10 in the second half and field position is vital, what I'm asking is if your a coach do you tell your player to give up the single for field position or to chance the return (risking getting tackled at the 5 yard line like he almost did before his great return)?
So instead of letting it bounce into the endzone (or at least taking the chance that it is going to (which would happen about 19/20 times) you would have your returner return the ball from the one and risk getting tackled?
Earlier this year Cory Holmes made the decision to let it bouce in (but did get unlucky and it bounced sideways from the 7 yard line, not the goalline). The same bounce would have resulted in a single in this case.
Well not returning the ball and letting bounce into the endzone was an option. THe single could have been given up and Toronto could have taken the ball at the 35 instead of risking getting tackled at the 5 yard line in a close game where every point matters (and yes I know he ended up having a great return). So it can't be that.
He is correct on taking the ball from the one into the endzone being a safety unless his momentum catching the ball takes him into the endzone in which case it's a single. And he is correct on Levingston's ego so it must be those two things.