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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by ajmc

"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!!!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

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!!!

Thank you for your grammatical suggestions, I always appreciate constructive assistance. In return, may I suggest you consider "pettifogger". Although it relates specifically to the legal profession, it has application, and creates consequences in many pursuits.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thank you for your grammatical suggestions, I always appreciate constructive assistance. In return, may I suggest you consider "pettifogger". Although it relates specifically to the legal profession, it has application, and creates consequences in many pursuits.

You're right, but calling you that just muddies the water even more. We're trying to move on since it's clear you're here to do nothing more than agitate. Congrats on the Scrabble championship against yourself the other night.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

You're right, but calling you that just muddies the water even more. We're trying to move on since it's clear you're here to do nothing more than agitate. Congrats on the Scrabble championship against yourself the other night.

If you don't like ducking rocks, you might consider NOT throwing any. It's not about agitating, any more than it's about "undeniable".

There's a reasonable difference of opinion relating to the judgment and conclusion of a qualified professional reacting in real time, under an intense spotlight being second guessed about factors, some, might consider irrelevant to the incident.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thank you for your grammatical suggestions, I always appreciate constructive assistance. In return, may I suggest you consider "pettifogger". Although it relates specifically to the legal profession, it has application, and creates consequences in many pursuits.

I think we're done here.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Altor

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

[jTheUmp]

Very true, Rut.

No matter what the call was on the field, the sports-yakkers would've found some way to make it controversial... controversy, after all, is what sells papers/gets page clicks/causes people to tune in to your TV or radio show.

Had a situation in one of my games a few weeks ago that was similar: Punt beyond NZ is bouncing back toward K's goal line... K player, in an attempt to keep the ball from going back any farther, dives, and muffs/bats (from the video, it looks very much like it could've been a bat) the ball back towards R's goal line.

Of course, the difference here is that then R picked up the ball and scored a touchdown, so even if it had been an illegal bat, the penalty would've been declined anyway (NCAA rules). But still, we could've easily had a flag for illegal batting, and we passed on it. Of course, in my case, there was no national TV audience and (I would assume) nobody gambling on the outcome of the game.