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

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Perhaps you might consider EXPANDING your number and variety of contacts. The result of that play, as declared by the game officials, was CORRECT

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by ajmc

On the other hand, Mr. Blandino should be ashamed of himself for throwing one of his charges directly under the nearest bus.

No different than when the R goes under the hood and overturns a judgment made by one of his crew members.

[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.