Blandino: Refs incorrectly handled key end-zone call at end of Lions-Seahawks

[deleted]

Dean Blandino -- Refs incorrectly handled crucial end-zone call at end of Lions-Seahawks

bwburke94

None of the officials had an angle that clearly showed it was an illegal bat.

Fun fact, the back judge in this game was (allegedly) the same guy who was originally slated to do the Fail Mary game before the lockout got in the way.

bigjohn

Really, he had a great look,, said it wasn't OVERT!!

Seahawks' game-saving play against Lions shouldn't have counted - CBSSports.com

Furthermore, Blandino denied that the official didn't know the rule. Instead, he claimed the official looking at the play didn't think it was "overt."

Rich

Let's face it -- only the officials knew the rule. Player could've easily controlled that ball in the end zone....HE didn't know it was illegal to bat it out.

BJ just missed it or judged it wasn't overt enough, which (IMO) was a mistake. Great position, though.

OKREF

If you watch they play from the above angle, the official rises up and reaches for what looks to be his flag then decides not to throw it.

whitehat

Great situation for learning...Assuming an illegal bat here, how would you rule on this in NFHS? Penalty for illegal bat? Touchback? Safety? Whose ball and where...?

SC Official

whitehat wrote
Great situation for learning...Assuming an illegal bat here, how would you rule on this in NFHS? Penalty for illegal bat? Touchback? Safety? Whose ball and where...?

I will admit that I had to think about and read up on this one, so I hope I'm correct.

The force was supplied by Team A's fumble, so it can't be a safety. The result of the play is a touchback. This is a running play as the fumble occurred beyond the neutral zone. Under ABO, enforce from the end of the run, the 1-yard line. It will be A's ball at the 1/2-yard line.

whitehat

SC Official, I too had to think a bit on this one and I agree with you.
Some commentary: Even though the defender slapped the ball out of the runners possession, by definition a new force cannot be added unless the ball has first been grounded. Therefore A, in this case, is responsible for putting the ball into (and therefore out of) the EZ so result of the play is a Touchback.

Despite B batting it out of the EZ they did not force it into the EZ and so they kind of get a pass on "force" in this situation as force only applies to how the ball gets into the EZ and not how it comes out the other end...
Then we go back to the bean bag where the run ended (where fumble occurred) and enforce the penalty against B and repeat the down (unless yardage is enough for first down).

If anyone has a different ruling please chime in.

jTheUmp

Agree with your rulings in both FED and NCAA... I think I read somewhere that illegal batting includes an automatic first down in the NFL, but I'm not sure where I read it.

ajmc

Absolutely amazing, the judgment whether the players contact with the ball was overt, intentional, deliberate or any other descriptive adjective rests entirely with the covering official (who by the way, was in perfect position to make a sound and reasonable judgment).

If ANYONE should understand that principle, it should be other football officials.

jTheUmp

Huh?

All I (and it looks like everyone else responding) are doing is discussing what the enforcement would have been if the covering official HAD ruled it an illegal bat.

At the time, he obviously didn't think it was worthy of a foul. And if he initially reached for his flag and then decided not to throw on it... who among us hasn't been there before?

Then his supervisor decides that the covering official's call was incorrect... again, who among us hasn't been there before?

Sucks that it happened, but these things happen to all of us from time to time... if it hasn't happened to you yet, you haven't been officiating long enough.

OKREF

All I know is it looks incredibly overt and on purpose.

JRutledge

OKREF wrote
All I know is it looks incredibly overt and on purpose.

If you work football, I doubt that would ever have been called until now.

If this was called we would have had an entirely different discussion. Then the media would have talked about how bad the rule was and how the Seahawks got screwed.

Peace

OKREF

JRutledge wrote
If you work football, I doubt that would ever have been called until now.

If this was called we would have had an entirely different discussion. Then the media would have talked about how bad the rule was and how the Seahawks got screwed.

Peace

I do work football. It still looks overt and on purpose, the media would also be saying that the official made the right call according to the rule.

APG

jTheUmp wrote
Agree with your rulings in both FED and NCAA... I think I read somewhere that illegal batting includes an automatic first down in the NFL, but I'm not sure where I read it.

This penalty would be enforced the same way under NFL rules...with an automatic first down tacked on.

Rich

ajmc wrote
Absolutely amazing, the judgment whether the players contact with the ball was overt, intentional, deliberate or any other descriptive adjective rests entirely with the covering official (who by the way, was in perfect position to make a sound and reasonable judgment).

If ANYONE should understand that principle, it should be other football officials.

His judgment was wrong. Happens to all of us. No reason to sugarcoat it or suggest anything else.

MD Longhorn

Honestly, I think his "judgement" was after the fact. We all know the adage about not grabbing the crappy end of the stick. I honestly think this official saw the play, ruled it an illegal bat, reached for his flag, and then decided that flagging that, in this situation, was the crappy end of the stick - and didn't pull the flag.

Not realizing that in reality, NOT making that call turned out to be the crappy end of the stick.

ajmc

Rich wrote
His judgment was wrong. Happens to all of us. No reason to sugarcoat it or suggest anything else.

Of course you are entitled to your OPINION, but a qualified, professional game official CLEARLY in the absolute PERFECT position to observe and judge the ENTIRE action, rendered his (informed) judgment, which as We all should know and understand is the one that matters.

On the other hand, Mr. Blandino should be ashamed of himself for throwing one of his charges directly under the nearest bus.

No "sugar coating", reversing what actually happened (a great, heads-up defensive play at a critical instant) because of (at the very best) a gnat's eyelash, nit picking overly technical, inconsequential, DEBATABLE assumption, would have been a tragedy.

As the Detroit Head Coach has suggested, "stuff happens" that game is over, next week's game is coming.

HLin NC

So Federationally, we are going to go back to the spot of the fumble (end of the related run- thanks Mr. Beanbag), penalize B half the distance to the goal, and replay the down- correct?

Welpe

HLin NC wrote
So Federationally, we are going to go back to the spot of the fumble (end of the related run- thanks Mr. Beanbag), penalize B half the distance to the goal, and replay the down- correct?

You are correct.