Blandino defends ruling on Boyd fumble

[Froob]

(09-19-2016, 02:10 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Based on his explanation, if the initial ruling had been a catch -- that also would have been upheld due to lack of proof otherwise. This goes back a few years ago where basically when there's a fumble/interception/touchdown, the default is to call it that and let the play play out as opposed to blowing a whistle, figuring replay will validate the call or overturn it.

To call it a catch, you would have to assume Boyd had possesion of ball before he was touched by the defense. Additionally, the refs assumed Boyd fumbled. Assuming both these things to be true, the only time Boyd could fumble would be when his knee was not down. Refs should not have assumed both to be true because logic says that it cannot be true. The decision should have been an incomplete pass, as it was deemed that Boyd fumbled and the only way he could "fumble" was if the ball came out before his knee was on the ground (aka incomplete pass) .

I guess this is too hard for the refs to comprehend. 

Edit: Tlr - By the refs assuming it was a fumble, they should have looked into whether or not the requirements for a catch would be satisfied by condition of the fumble occuring before the knee hits the ground. Which it is not satisfied.