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

[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?

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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.