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

[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]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

It did not look "overt" to me. Not with all the plays I have seen in football of a loose ball.

Oh, you mean the same media that said that the "tuck rule" was a horrible rule? Of when the media said Dez Bryant made a catch even the fact the rule says they did not make a catch?

Be careful what you think the media will support as we have very recent evidence the media likes to play the "This is what should have happened" game often when it involves things they do not understand.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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

K. J. Wright later admitted that he did it on purpose.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. I think sometimes we as officials get in trouble trying to apply too much philosophy over clear rules.

Hard to say for sure either way but it is a good learning experience.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

You are correct.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by 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?

Correct. It's your basic "Team B fouls during a Team A fumble" enforcement. Basic spot is the end of the run, since Team B fouled, we penalize from the basic spot.

The fact that the foul happened in the end zone can trip us up a little bit, but the fact that the foul is in the end zone is irrelevant in this case.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by 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?

Correct. It would be a first down in this specific case since the LTG was the 10-yard line.