01-16-2016, 02:33 PM
(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.