Not a Catch

[BigPapaKain]

(01-16-2016, 12:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: 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.

That's the same thing my father in law said.

My Pittsburgh Steeler fan father in law.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 02:33 PM)Beaker Wrote: 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.

And, again, Blandino was never an official.  Never on the field...ever.  I'm not even sure why he's allowed to help the officials make calls on replay.

BUT...he point is the officials called it a TD and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn.  

Even when Blandino talks about the replay parts that might be there to overturn he says they aren't near enough.

Catch.

TD.

Did he say anything about the quick whistle that took the Steelers other TD off the board?

[TRsome]

(01-16-2016, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, Blandino was never an official.  Never on the field...ever.  I'm not even sure why he's allowed to help the officials make calls on replay.

BUT...he point is the officials called it a TD and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn.  

Even when Blandino talks about the replay parts that might be there to overturn he says they aren't near enough.

Catch.

TD.

Did he say anything about the quick whistle that took the Steelers other TD off the board?

You know, I'm a bit surprised you're arguing this. I thought you were a bit more level headed. The head of officiating said that he was looking at it with a clean slate that it would be "no catch." What does that mean to you? I really don't care if the refs called it on the field and didn't have enough evidence to fix their mistake. He's saying the correct call would have been "no catch". NO CATCH. The rest of it is explaining why that wasn't called on the field.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2016, 04:45 PM)TRsome Wrote: You know, I'm a bit surprised you're arguing this. I thought you were a bit more level headed. The head of officiating said that he was looking at it with a clean slate that it would be "no catch." What does that mean to you? I really don't care if the refs called it on the field and didn't have enough evidence to fix their mistake. He's saying the correct call would have been "no catch". NO CATCH. The rest of it is explaining why that wasn't called on the field.

I'm only arguing that half of what Blandino says is BS as he has zero experience on the field as a ref.  His only experience is with replay...and so I find his statement disingenuous as he then goes on to say replay couldn't overturn the call.

[Beaker]

(01-16-2016, 04:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, Blandino was never an official.  Never on the field...ever.  I'm not even sure why he's allowed to help the officials make calls on replay.

BUT...he point is the officials called it a TD and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn.  

Even when Blandino talks about the replay parts that might be there to overturn he says they aren't near enough.

Catch.

TD.

Did he say anything about the quick whistle that took the Steelers other TD off the board?

Whether or not he ever officiated on the field is a moot point. He knows the rules ans was offering his analysis after watching the replay. I thought the very same thing when they first showed the replay. I said that by the time he had control of the ball after it shifting, he only appeared to get one step in bounds. But I also agreed that it was borderline enough not to have enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.

[Vlad]

(01-16-2016, 05:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: Whether or not he ever officiated on the field is a moot point. He knows the rules ans was offering his analysis after watching the replay. I thought the very same thing when they first showed the replay. I said that by the time he had control of the ball after it shifting, he only appeared to get one step in bounds. But I also agreed that it was borderline enough not to have enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.

Then you can say that this thread is a moot point.

[Beaker]

(01-16-2016, 06:09 PM)Vlad Wrote: Then you can say that this thread is a moot point.

We can also say your life is a moot point.

[TRsome]

(01-16-2016, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm only arguing that half of what Blandino says is BS as he has zero experience on the field as a ref.  His only experience is with replay...and so I find his statement disingenuous as he then goes on to say replay couldn't overturn the call.

I'll concede that he says a lot of BS, simply because I don't agree with his assessment of the Shazier hit. With that said, all of his BS is because he is trying to err on the side of the refs' calls. If there is anything disingenuous about his statement regarding this play, it's that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn - when there was enough evidence for him personally to call it "no catch" in the first place.

[Vlad]

(01-16-2016, 06:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: We can also say your life is a moot point.

That was devastating. I think I'll take a time out after that one.

[Rotobeast]

(01-16-2016, 06:09 PM)Vlad Wrote: Then you can say that this thread is a moot point.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

Meh.....it's over, everyone makes mistakes. Take Vlad's parents and how they opted for pro life.....

Everyone deserves a second chance.



Lmaoooooooooooooo!!!!!

But yeah, Blandino is a choad.