for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Dean Blandino says

blueblood'11 : 2/8/2016 6:54 am
The ball touched the ground and slid up Cotchery's body. Now I don't know if this was discussed anywhere else however, but I imagine it was. And I could really give a damn who won. I just wanted to see a good game. But how in the world can Dean Blandino make such a definitive statement.

It was clear from every angle they could possibly show us, and they showed us some really good angles, the ball never touched the ground. Again Mike Carey was made to look like a fool. I don't know of anyone who didn't think it was a catch after the review. Simms and Nance I think we're totally shocked and really didn't know what to say.

It makes you wonder if Dean Blandino isn't the one really pulling the strings in an instance like this. Even though Blakeman the referee went under the hood was Blandino in his earpiece calling the shot. Without a doubt it had an effect on the game but the way Denver's defense was playing I don't think it would have mattered. It's just a reminder of how fucked up the rules in the NFL have become and with this asshole Dean Blandino leading the charge it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
Call was incomplete on field  
Carl in CT : 2/8/2016 7:04 am : link
Didn't look like there was evidence to overturn as the ball was moving. Didn't look like it hit but you can't say it didn't so the call stands.
In general, I thought the calls favored Denver.  
Ira : 2/8/2016 7:24 am : link
I can't argue the point, because the details aren't fresh in my mind. But it seemed that way to me.
Yo can't overturn a call on the field  
ZogZerg : 2/8/2016 7:29 am : link
if there is any question with the reply.

And, I think the calls were EVEN for the game. The was a BS personal foul penalty called on Denver where Carolina should have had to punt, but instead was given a first down.
It looked like it could have hit the ground  
est1986 : 2/8/2016 7:32 am : link
His hand was under it but it still was like a trap.. No camera angle showed that it did hit the ground but more importantly it didn't show that it didn't, so no over turn was right.
Carl  
blueblood'11 : 2/8/2016 7:33 am : link
Yeah the ball was moving but so what. He wrested control of it. And you're correct in saying it didn't hit the ground. I really cannot believe how positive Mike Carey was on his take. He didn't mince any words or waste any time. He thought proof positive it would be overturned. How long before the NFL doesn't allow these former officials in the booth second guessing their decisions on these replays because it really makes them look bad when it happens and it happens quite frequently.
est1986  
blueblood'11 : 2/8/2016 7:35 am : link
Tell that to Mike Carey.
The ball 100 percent hit the ground  
Tuckrule : 2/8/2016 7:37 am : link
The point hit the ground and when cotchery rolled the ball shifted as a result of hitting the ground. How can you say it didn't. It's honestly clear as day that it did. Simms focused on the the bobble at the very end of it hit the ground or not but it was on that initial hit with the turf that the ball clearly hit the field and then shifted up his arm
To add to my post  
Tuckrule : 2/8/2016 7:39 am : link
If cotchery didn't bobble it or have it roll up his arm after the point of contact on the turf it would have been ruled a catch. Very similar to Odell's TD vs Miami. In that case the hit the field but never moved therefore Odell had control.
Looked like an incompletion to me  
Peter from NH (formerly CT) : 2/8/2016 7:40 am : link
The fact that Mike Carey though otherwise was proof to me that it was.
I have no skin in the game on this one  
Carl in CT : 2/8/2016 7:42 am : link
Yes it moved. Because it landed on his arm? Or hit the ground? I don't think you can say 100% he caught it. I agree I think he might have but enough to over rule? I'm not sure.
There was a moment of stunned silence from the booth  
Headhunter : 2/8/2016 7:42 am : link
as America realized as one that they just watched Mike Carey's job go down in flames
The ref did say  
Fred in Atlanta : 2/8/2016 7:54 am : link
the call stands, which is indication that the replay was inconclusive. I believe that was the case.
Ball touched the ground and was moving all over the place  
UberAlias : 2/8/2016 8:00 am : link
I hate defending the refs, but they got this right. No control of that thing whatsoever.
It was the right call  
MetsAreBack : 2/8/2016 8:04 am : link
really incredible how useless Mike Carey is in that role. I did like him as a NFL ref -- but scary how he so often misinterprets pretty clear cut rules. Makes you wonder how many other NFL refs out there have subjective views on this basic stuff
Mike Carey  
GiantsRage2007 : 2/8/2016 8:25 am : link
Has been bad, bad, bad all year - and I have beat him up a few times on here too.

This time, I thought he did a good job.

He was definitive, clear spoken, and concise - pretty much the opposite of what he has been all year long.

I think it just goes to show, nobody knows what a catch is...you can ding him for not getting the call right, but not for how he handled his analysis (for once!)

Did anyone see if Mike Pereira was on twitter during the game and what his take was? I like his analysis much more... but to be fair, he gets a few wrong too.
the OP loses all credability  
grizz299 : 2/8/2016 8:42 am : link
with statements like "it was clear", "I don't know anyone who disagrees"

All that stands is that he's a vulgarian who can't rationally make a case without using inappropriate foulness.

Try this you childish narrow brained, dirty mouthed Schmuck, It was NOT CLEAR, reasonable people can disagree on this one and lots of people do - including the refs who had the task of reviewing the play and the majority of commentators here including this poster.
No catch  
AP in Halfmoon : 2/8/2016 8:54 am : link
It seemed obvious to me
A few thoughts  
Matt M. : 2/8/2016 8:55 am : link
1) The ruling on the field was incomplete, which means you need indisputable evidence of a catch to overturn it. I don't think that measure was reached.

2) The first time they showed the replay, I thought it was a catch. Then, when they slowed it down from the other side, I said the nose of the ball hit the ground and moved.

3) It also didn't help that the ball seemed to shift 2 or 3 times on his way down to begin with.

4) What I don't get is how Carey, a trained official, watched that replay over and over and doesn't see the ball hit, or at the very least the possibility of the ball hitting the ground.
Looked  
AcidTest : 2/8/2016 8:57 am : link
like a catch to me initially, and still does, but really slowing it down creates some doubt, and that's all that's necessary to prevent the call from being overturned.
I think the refs should explain more when making calls  
map7711 : 2/8/2016 9:00 am : link
This would go a loooong way to help the image of them

Explain the ruling stands on the catch b/c there was no clear evidence to overturn the ruling

Explain why you pick up the flag on Denvers D - because Cam was out of the pocket.

Explain why the flag stood in the end zone against Carolina even though the ball was uncatchable. It's b/c the hold took place before the pass was thrown

Things like that would go a long way in my opinion.
Even BBI  
Doomster : 2/8/2016 9:02 am : link
can't agree.....a day later....
I agree with Blandino  
moze1021 : 2/8/2016 9:08 am : link
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CappJcSXEAYsHEc.mp4

It seems pretty clear that the ball hits the ground... don't know how Simms, Nantz, and everyone else who say they dont see it, don't see it..

Pause the video link at 4 seconds... yes his hand is around the ball, but the nose touches the ground... if it didn't move afterwards then its still a catch, but then it does move, so it isn't..
RE: I think the refs should explain more when making calls  
giants#1 : 2/8/2016 9:12 am : link
In comment 12805598 map7711 said:
Quote:
This would go a loooong way to help the image of them

Explain the ruling stands on the catch b/c there was no clear evidence to overturn the ruling

Explain why you pick up the flag on Denvers D - because Cam was out of the pocket.

Explain why the flag stood in the end zone against Carolina even though the ball was uncatchable. It's b/c the hold took place before the pass was thrown

Things like that would go a long way in my opinion.


Some of this is on the announcers and some of this they typically do. Most defensive holdings/illegal contact they'll announce "prior to the pass..." even though it's implied by the penalty (after the pass would be PI).

The refs definitely need to improve on their explanations following replays though. Did he think the ball hit the ground or was their a brief moment where he couldn't see the nose of the ball from any angle where the ball may have hit the ground?
Giants#1  
map7711 : 2/8/2016 9:23 am : link
Agreed. The announcers should do that but they sometimes don't even know the rules. Plus w the replay they try to do that but don't know what's in the refs head and what that ref is seeing under the hood. The refs need to explain more especially in the SB when there's a ton of people watching who don't watch FB on a regular basis. Plus it's the freaking SB. Spend the extra 10 seconds to make sure the audience knows what's going on.
I don't understand the confusion on this.  
therealmf : 2/8/2016 9:25 am : link
Hhe had control of the ball just prior to hitting the ground, but the rules state he must maintain control through the fall. The tip of the ball touches the ground and he clearly loses control of the ball.

Now he does regain control of the ball but it had already touched the ground.
RE: I don't understand the confusion on this.  
YAJ2112 : 2/8/2016 9:32 am : link
In comment 12805640 therealmf said:
Quote:
Hhe had control of the ball just prior to hitting the ground, but the rules state he must maintain control through the fall. The tip of the ball touches the ground and he clearly loses control of the ball.

Now he does regain control of the ball but it had already touched the ground.


Yeah, I agree with this. I didn't see it live or in the replays but if you still frame the link provided above you can see that this is what happened. No catch was the right call.
talking fools need something to talk about  
tempit : 2/8/2016 9:44 am : link
so invent the bull " what is a catch " and roll it out over and over -- the rule is clear and for the most part been applied well.

WR can avoid the mess by staying on their feet and complete the catch.

Too many WR are advancing the ball too soon and it becomes a habit.

WR's job is the catch the ball and not just those that are easy to catch --- the good WR work to catch the ball --- how many games would have a different outcome if WR would just catch the ball ?
RE: Giants#1  
giants#1 : 2/8/2016 10:05 am : link
In comment 12805635 map7711 said:
Quote:
Agreed. The announcers should do that but they sometimes don't even know the rules. Plus w the replay they try to do that but don't know what's in the refs head and what that ref is seeing under the hood. The refs need to explain more especially in the SB when there's a ton of people watching who don't watch FB on a regular basis. Plus it's the freaking SB. Spend the extra 10 seconds to make sure the audience knows what's going on.


That's actually part of the reason Hochuli usually gets good marks as a ref. He's good at explaining his rationale on most calls (sometimes too much).
RE: It looked like it could have hit the ground  
shabu : 2/8/2016 10:20 am : link
In comment 12805487 est1986 said:
Quote:
His hand was under it but it still was like a trap.. No camera angle showed that it did hit the ground but more importantly it didn't show that it didn't, so no over turn was right.


yep.
Looked to me that the nose hit the ground  
jeff57 : 2/8/2016 10:26 am : link
before he had control. And the standard is indisputable evidence to overturn the call.
They did not show the most conclusive angle until after  
if_i_knew : 2/8/2016 11:44 am : link
they called inconclusive. To me, the most judgmental part of the play was the last few moments, and most of the replays did not show a proper angle in order to see the tip of the ball. It was not until the review was over and the ref confirmed the call on the field that that particular angle was shown
RE: They did not show the most conclusive angle until after  
Fred in Atlanta : 2/8/2016 11:52 am : link
In comment 12806070 if_i_knew said:
Quote:
they called inconclusive. To me, the most judgmental part of the play was the last few moments, and most of the replays did not show a proper angle in order to see the tip of the ball. It was not until the review was over and the ref confirmed the call on the field that that particular angle was shown

Ref never said call is confirm only that it stands, which means they could not tell from replays.
RE: Looked like an incompletion to me  
Sarcastic Sam : 2/8/2016 11:52 am : link
In comment 12805502 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
The fact that Mike Carey though otherwise was proof to me that it was.


Mike Carey is basically the Stan in LA of sports broadcasting.
OnE of the decent things about it being the offseason  
SethFromAstoria : 2/8/2016 11:54 am : link
No need to hear or see Dean Blandontknow
I thought they got it right  
mpinmaine : 2/8/2016 11:56 am : link
not enough to overturn it, that's how it goes.
what does it matter what blandino or whatever says, it affects nothing
This thread  
Big Al : 2/8/2016 11:56 am : link
provides incontrovertible evidence that the referee was correct in not overturning the call.
RE: I thought they got it right  
giants#1 : 2/8/2016 11:58 am : link
In comment 12806124 mpinmaine said:
Quote:
not enough to overturn it, that's how it goes.
what does it matter what blandino or whatever says, it affects nothing


For starters, the head ref consults with the NFL officiating office (i.e. Blandino and others) during the review process.
Call upheld  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 2/8/2016 12:00 pm : link
Moze's video pretty clearly shows why the call was upheld and rightfully so, in my opinion. He points one possible time that the ball appears to touch the ground at around the 4 second mark. There is another time at the 8-9 second mark where the ball also appears to be in contact with the ground, although he could have the ball pinned against his body and on top of his arm. Hard to see with this angle. While it's debatable whether the ball moves at this point, he definitely double clutches it with the hand pinning the ball to his body while continuing the roll. So really there are two possible points where the catch comes into doubt which makes this call pretty easy to uphold.

That said, it would have been much more interesting if the call had been a catch. I believe that would have stood as well because you can't really definitively see the ball hit the ground without a hand under it, but it would be a much closer review.
RE: Mike Carey  
montanagiant : 2/8/2016 12:24 pm : link
In comment 12805548 GiantsRage2007 said:
Quote:
Has been bad, bad, bad all year - and I have beat him up a few times on here too.

This time, I thought he did a good job.

He was definitive, clear spoken, and concise - pretty much the opposite of what he has been all year long.

I think it just goes to show, nobody knows what a catch is...you can ding him for not getting the call right, but not for how he handled his analysis (for once!)

Did anyone see if Mike Pereira was on twitter during the game and what his take was? I like his analysis much more... but to be fair, he gets a few wrong too.

Always liked him as a ref but I am pretty sure he is done on TV
In my mind it was clearly not a catch  
SLIM_ : 2/8/2016 1:01 pm : link
if it was called a catch on the field, there was enough evidence to overturn. Ball hit the ground and movement occurred after that.
Back to the Corner