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

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

And a qualified, professional who is in charge of the officials said he made a mistake

[bigjohn]

In the NFL's rulebook, the definition of a "bat" is broad and clear: "A Bat or Punch is the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm."


All it takes is the intentional striking of a ball, which is exactly what happened.

[HLin NC]

Originally Posted by OKREF

And a qualified, professional who is in charge of the officials said he made a mistake

I'd go light on the "qualified" portion of that.



A native of Bellmore, N.Y., Blandino has spent his entire professional career in football officiating. After graduating in 1993 from Hofstra University, Blandino joined the NFL for the 1994 season as an officiating intern. Following the 1994 season, he was hired full-time as an officiating video assistant and then was promoted to special projects coordinator.
Dean Blandino named NFL vice president of officiating - NFL.com

As a neutral in this game and a non-football official I immediately thought that Wright batted the ball on purpose and thought he made a great play. It never occurred to me that such an action might be illegal -- there were no nearby offensive players attempting to recover the ball, etc. I'm still unsure why this rule would be in effect in any situation other than trying to bat it away from an offensive player about to recover the ball. In this situation I see no advantage gained.

The media and Blandino throwing the BJ under the bus here, what about the deep wing on that side? Surely he had a secondary on the play.

[bigjohn]

I mean intent means the official has to be able to read the players mind, right?? Unless it is an OVERT bat it isn't intentional, right! Cmon guys defend your own!!!! I mean they all discussed and you know they said, Hey man it is illegal to bat the ball in the end zone. Right? He said yeah but he didn't do it intentionally enough for me to say he intended to bat it, so I say no bat at all! Seahawks ball!

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The media and Blandino throwing the BJ under the bus here, what about the deep wing on that side? Surely he had a secondary on the play.

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by AremRed

In this situation I see no advantage gained.

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