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

None of the officials had an angle that clearly showed it was an illegal bat.

Fun fact, the back judge in this game was (allegedly) the same guy who was originally slated to do the Fail Mary game before the lockout got in the way.

Really, he had a great look,, said it wasn't OVERT!!


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQmq-tgUAAAPn96.jpg

Seahawks' game-saving play against Lions shouldn't have counted - CBSSports.com


Furthermore, Blandino denied that the official didn't know the rule. Instead, he claimed the official looking at the play didn't think it was "overt."

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

Let's face it -- only the officials knew the rule. Player could've easily controlled that ball in the end zone....HE didn't know it was illegal to bat it out.

BJ just missed it or judged it wasn't overt enough, which (IMO) was a mistake. Great position, though.

If you watch they play from the above angle, the official rises up and reaches for what looks to be his flag then decides not to throw it.

Great situation for learning...Assuming an illegal bat here, how would you rule on this in NFHS? Penalty for illegal bat? Touchback? Safety? Whose ball and where...?

I will admit that I had to think about and read up on this one, so I hope I'm correct.

The force was supplied by Team A's fumble, so it can't be a safety. The result of the play is a touchback. This is a running play as the fumble occurred beyond the neutral zone. Under ABO, enforce from the end of the run, the 1-yard line. It will be A's ball at the 1/2-yard line.

SC Official, I too had to think a bit on this one and I agree with you.
Some commentary: Even though the defender slapped the ball out of the runners possession, by definition a new force cannot be added unless the ball has first been grounded. Therefore A, in this case, is responsible for putting the ball into (and therefore out of) the EZ so result of the play is a Touchback.

Despite B batting it out of the EZ they did not force it into the EZ and so they kind of get a pass on "force" in this situation as force only applies to how the ball gets into the EZ and not how it comes out the other end...
Then we go back to the bean bag where the run ended (where fumble occurred) and enforce the penalty against B and repeat the down (unless yardage is enough for first down).

If anyone has a different ruling please chime in.

Agree with your rulings in both FED and NCAA... I think I read somewhere that illegal batting includes an automatic first down in the NFL, but I'm not sure where I read it.

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.

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.

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

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.

This penalty would be enforced the same way under NFL rules...with an automatic first down tacked on.

His judgment was wrong. Happens to all of us. No reason to sugarcoat it or suggest anything else.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!!! :D 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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

OPINIONS are like......ear holes (or other body orifices), everybody has them and they're just a little bit different than everyone else's. It's exceedingly rare that anyone is "undeniably" incorrect, especially when there is WIDE disagreement.

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.

You are the only person thinking that there's even a 1% chance that the official wasn't wrong here.

And frankly the advantage/disadvantage thing doesn't wash here. He batted...a ball...in the end zone. That's a foul.

"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!!!

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I think we're done here.