01-16-2016, 12:03 AM
(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?
