Not a Catch

[TRsome]

Per Blandino

Seems like Vlad is wrong about everything except the still debatable Shazier hit.

[6andcounting]

How can you take his word for not a catch, but say the Shazier hit is still debateable?

[TRsome]

Because you and I both know there will be a clear(er) rule against it next year.

[*rfaulk34*]

It wasn't a catch, by rule, but it was a pretty impressive feat regardless.

[*bfine32*]

Three things:

The refs screwed us

They didn't do it on purpose

The fallout makes them look more inept all the time. A Shazier fine would have been a clean sweep.

But hey they apologized for calling the penalty on Williams.

[Vlad]

(01-15-2016, 09:17 PM)TRsome Wrote: Per Blandino

Seems like Vlad is wrong about everything except the still debatable Shazier hit.

For someone who apparently has been following me around you should know I never argued the catch.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2016, 09:17 PM)TRsome Wrote: Per Blandino

Seems like Vlad is wrong about everything except the still debatable Shazier hit.

That is an interesting take you got for the article.

Let's look at what Blandino said though:

Quote:“I don’t think this is a catch,” Blandino said. “If I just had a blank slate and I could say, ‘Do you think it’s a catch or not a catch’?, I would said no catch. But the ruling on the field was a catch, and we have to see clear and obvious evidence that it’s not a catch.”

Blandino emphasized it’s not a catch rule question but a replay rule issue.

“Is there indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field of a catch?” he said. “It was ruled a catch on the field, so the basic premise of replay since its inception is the call on the field is presumed correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence that it is incorrect, then we can make a change. You watch the play live, and the question is going to be control. Initial control. Bryant is going to pin the ball against his leg . . . and then as he rolls over he’s going to maintain that control. And again the issue, did he have control with the right foot down? There is some movement, Slight movement does not necessarily mean loss or lack of control. He pins the ball against his leg there. Is the foot still down as he starts to go to the ground? . . . Again, not indisputable.”

There could be some dispute as to whether the evidence is indisputable. But that simply proves the evidence isn’t indisputable. It’s not clear. That’s what the replay rule is aimed at addressing.

So the Bryant catch falls into the category of plays that wouldn’t be overturned regardless of the ruling on the field. In this case, and in real time, the officials regarded it to be a catch. With the available evidence, there was no way to overturn it.

So he's saying it *may* not have been a catch but there wasn't enough evidence to say that.

A little different than the title of the thread.

[TRsome]

(01-15-2016, 09:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: For someone who apparently has been following me around you should know I never argued the catch.

I don't have time to keep up with your posts. I make educated guesses based on how much you whine after your team wins a game.

[*rfaulk34*]

(01-15-2016, 09:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: That is an interesting take you got for the article.

Let's look at what Blandino said though:





So he's saying it *may* not have been a catch but there wasn't enough evidence to say that.

A little different than the title of the thread.

Hairs; you like to split them. 

[TRsome]

(01-15-2016, 09:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: That is an interesting take you got for the article.

Let's look at what Blandino said though:





So he's saying it *may* not have been a catch but there wasn't enough evidence to say that.

A little different than the title of the thread.

Pretty clear what he thought about it in his first sentence. I read it basically as "I don't think it was a catch but I can see why the officials could make that mistake and not be able to fix it with replay."

[GMDino]

(01-15-2016, 09:48 PM)TRsome Wrote: Pretty clear what he thought about it in his first sentence. I read it basically as "I don't think it was a catch but I can see why the officials could make that mistake and not be able to fix it with replay."

Pretty clear that he went on to explain that replay could NOT fix it if it needed fixed because there wasn't enough evidence to do so.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2016, 09:48 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Hairs; you like to split them. 

Just repeating what the man said.  

[Vlad]

(01-15-2016, 09:46 PM)TRsome Wrote: I don't have time to keep up with your posts. I make educated guesses based on how much you whine after your team wins a game.

See the very first comment below the article by dirtyback...he's talking about you.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Blandino.......kinda like The Wolf in Pulp Fiction. Damage control Rooney's boy Roger....nothing else.

[TRsome]

(01-15-2016, 09:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Pretty clear that he went on to explain that replay could NOT fix it if it needed fixed because there wasn't enough evidence to do so.

You're changing the argument.

Quote:“I don’t think this is a catch,” Blandino said. “If I just had a blank slate and I could say, ‘Do you think it’s a catch or not a catch’?, I would said no catch.

Looks like if he was on the field, he would have called it a "no catch." Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote:But the ruling on the field was a catch, and we have to see clear and obvious evidence that it’s not a catch.

But the ruling on the field said that it was a catch, contradicting his thoughts. And in order for that to be fixed, it needs to be obvious evidence that it's not a catch. So even though they couldn't correct it, it should not have been ruled a catch on the field, according to Blandino.


This seems pretty clear to me. Why are you trying to twist it?

[*rfaulk34*]

(01-16-2016, 12:03 AM)TRsome Wrote: You're changing the argument.




This seems pretty clear to me. Why are you trying to twist it?

Because...steelers fan.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 12:03 AM)TRsome Wrote: You're changing the argument.


Looks like if he was on the field, he would have called it a "no catch." Seems pretty clear to me.


But the ruling on the field said that it was a catch, contradicting his thoughts. And in order for that to be fixed, it needs to be obvious evidence that it's not a catch. So even though they couldn't correct it, it should not have been ruled a catch on the field, according to Blandino.


This seems pretty clear to me. Why are you trying to twist it?

Well, Blandino was NEVER on the field...his specialty is the technology not the rules.  That aside if says there isn't enough to overturn the call in real time then that means its a catch.  He's saying if HE was an official he would have said no catch...but upon review there's not enough there to make that statement true.

Did he comment on the quick whistle that cost the Steelers another TD?

Carry on.

EDIT:

I didn't realize this before when I was responding, so I apologize for getting caught up in this article.

Didn't anyone see who wrote it?!?!

Quote:Posted by Mike Florio on January 15, 2016, 5:26 PM EST

From what I have gathered around here he is an unabashed Steelers lover!!!
How can any Bengals fan take this story for what it is worth?!?!

[Beaker]

(01-15-2016, 09:17 PM)TRsome Wrote: Per Blandino

Seems like Vlad is wrong about everything except the still debatable Shazier hit.

Just goes to what everyone on both sides has been saying....this game was a mess from an officiating standpoint all the way through. Both teams got jobbed by the refs both making wrong calls and losing control of the game. This whole game was a black eye on the NFL.

[Rotobeast]

This is what I'm taking away from this....

We actually won our first playoff game in 25 years.
Pitt just bought it out from under us.

[Beaker]

(01-15-2016, 09:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: That is an interesting take you got for the article.

Let's look at what Blandino said though:





So he's saying it *may* not have been a catch but there wasn't enough evidence to say that.

A little different than the title of the thread.

Actually he said he didn't think it was a catch, and for the refs to overturn the call on the field the evidence would have to be irrefutable.