Snap was from outside the 10-yard line... the deep wing officials would be starting on the goal line pylon (and staying there as long as the goal line is threatened, which it most certainly was in this case).

Sure, the deep wing might have had a secondary look at the muff/bat at the back of the end zone, but he wouldn't be able to have any real definite knowledge... he could've had "I think" knowledge, but "I think" isn't enough to come in and overrule a fellow official who has primary coverage and a great look at the play.

Part of being a professional official is transparency and accountability. He was undeniably incorrect.

You mean, other than his team gaining possession of the ball?

If the ball goes out the back of the endzone without his touch, it's his ball. If he falls on the ball and it stays in the endzone it's his ball. If he falls on the ball and it goes out the back of the endzone it's his ball. Not sure why the spirit of this rule says this is a penalty despite no offensive players being nearby to make a play on the ball.

Because A) none of those other things happened and B) his action prevented OTHER things from happening ... like the ball taking a funny hop (it is a football afterall) and the offense recovering.

If no advantage was gained, why didn't he try to gain possession of the ball himself?

I haven't seen video of this play, but he must've made some choice in how he handled the ball between one way that maximized the chance of the ball going out of bounds and another way that maximized the chance that he'd recover it. Obviously the rules makers of the major codes wanted to encourage the latter type of play & discourage the former. Presumably the judgment required by the covering official would be similar to that for whether a passer intentionally grounds the ball.

OPINIONS are like......ear holes (or other body orifices), everybody has them and they're just a little bit different than everyone else's. It's exceedingly rare that anyone is "undeniably" incorrect, especially when there is WIDE disagreement.

Point me to this WIDE disagreement... I've not run across one person, ref or otherwise, who does not agree the bat was intentional. While it may be exceedingly rare... this official's judgement (if that is indeed what he judged, and I doubt that - see above) is clearly incorrect.

You are the only person thinking that there's even a 1% chance that the official wasn't wrong here.

And frankly the advantage/disadvantage thing doesn't wash here. He batted...a ball...in the end zone. That's a foul.

"Undeniable" is a really hard standard to achieve, especially when the subject matter is in serious, and rational, dispute.

Rational or irrational...and it's steering towards the latter this far down the river. But...what the hell, let's try this:

un·de·ni·a·ble

/ˌəndəˈnīəb(ə)l/

adjective

1.
unable to be denied or disputed

"it is an undeniable fact that some infractions are easier to call than others"
synonyms:
indisputable, indubitable, unquestionable, beyond doubt, beyond question

We all watched him bat the ball in the EZ. That's illegal. This is an open and shut case, your Honor. Next!!!

The player pushed the ball out the end zone with his fingertips and immediately raised his fist in victory before even looking at the official to see the touchback signal. He made no motion that could be construed as trying to gather the ball to obtain possession. He made no effort to even raise his left hand from his side.

How's that for undeniable?

Again if it was obvious, I doubt that many in their games would have made this call before they saw this play on TV and in slow motion.

I was told a long time ago the only way you want to call a bat is if they brought out a Louisville Slugger on the field. That was basically saying that you must do something overt and draw back and hit the football. That was not the case and if a lot of players were around the ball as well, I doubt seriously that this would have been an issue where we would even have talked about this. I have seen many more blatant "bats" that were not called in football.

Peace

I had trouble parsing your last post on this, but this seems pretty clear. Your position is basically that there is no circumstance under which you would call an illegal bat.

If that's the case, then there's no reason to continue discussing this.

I did not state my position other than to say it was not "overt" as the official stated. Discuss away, but do not tell me it was not debatable. It was and probably should have been called, but I totally see the position of the Back Judge in this situation. But to act like he is totally wrong and the supervisor is totally right or that they have never addressed this situation other than to get ahead of the PR game is laughable.

I just find it funny people suggest something is so obvious by you see many more blatant acts at all levels never called in this manner. Without this situation with 1000 replays, I would have never thought to make that call. If they did make the call, the media would be talking about how it was a bad rule and that the officials decided the game in favor of the Lions. All of that would have been about fairness just like they said when Cowboys had their play in the playoffs against Green Bay.

Peace