Dean Blandino's explanation

[KJJ]

Edelman' catch actually touched the ground (despite the ref saying it didn't) but he secured it before it did anyways.

You're wrong! The ball never "clearly" touched the ground. No where on the replay can you conclusively tell if the ball touched the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Going to the ground does not preclude football move.

Bingo.

 

[khiladi]

You're wrong! The ball never "clearly" touched the ground. No where on the replay can you conclusively tell if the ball touched the ground.

It absolutely does touch the ground. You can freeze it at 1:01 and 1:02..

That's why even the guest ref Pereira starts talking about him having control and maintaining control after that and he thinks they'll still rule it a catch..

 

[KJJ]

You flip-flop every time you get caught. You're the one that said a 'football move comes down to judgment' and there will always be issues about it. Going to the ground does not preclude football move.

It was overturned by the league, not the ref.

There is no way Des's catch should have been overturned.

A "football move" does come down to judgement and if a receiver makes a catch and an obvious turn up field before going to the ground, even if the ball comes loose the officials have been consistently ruling it a completed catch. There's a Julius Thomas play that's very similar to the Fitz play where he caught the ball, made a turn up field and lost the ball as he went to the ground but it was ruled a catch.

 

[KJJ]

It absolutely does touch the ground. You can freeze it at 1:01 and 1:02..

That's why even the guest ref Pereira starts talking about him having control and maintaining control after that and he thinks they'll still rule it a catch..

You can't clearly see if the ball touched the ground because his hands are under the ball. His hands were fully engulfed around the ball. No way could they overturned the call on the field.

 

[khiladi]

You can't clearly see if the ball touched the ground because his hands are under the ball. It's not conclusive.

I'm not going to sit here and argue that point. The main point was even if it touches the ground, it's still a catch. Pereira himself was confirming it there.

 

[khiladi]

A "football move" does come down to judgement and if a receiver makes a catch and an obvious turn up field before going to the ground, even if the ball comes loose the officials have been consistently ruling it a completed catch. There's a Julius Thomas play that's very similar to the Fitz play where he caught the ball, made a turn up field and lost the ball as he went to the ground but it was ruled a catch.

So Dez was a catch.. because it was ruled a catch by the ref and they overturned a catch, despite Dez making a football move which came down to judgement that the ref affirmed..

The whole argument by Blandino after the fact was that the steps didn't qualify as a football move.. well, per the ref it did..

 

[KJJ]

I'm not going to sit here and argue that point. The main point was even if it touches the ground, it's still a catch. Pereira himself was confirming it there.

Both his hands were fully around the ball and if was conclusive the ball did barely touch the ground it still would have been a catch because it didn't come loose. His hands were fully under the ball and he wasn't using the ground to aid in the catch.

 

[KJJ]

So Dez was a catch.. because it was ruled a catch by the ref and they overturned a catch, despite Dez making a football move which came down to judgement that the ref affirmed..

The whole argument by Blandino after the fact was that the steps didn't qualify as a football move.. well, per the ref it did..

Just give it up...damn!

 

[khiladi]

Both his hands were fully around the ball and if was conclusive the ball did barely touch the ground it still would have been a catch because it didn't come loose. His hands were fully under the ball and he wasn't using the ground to aid in the catch.

Nobody said he was using the ground to aid in the catch, all I said was if touched the ground. I said it was a catch because he secured possession before the ball hit.

Mike Pereira said the same thing.

 

[khiladi]

Just give it up...damn!

So basically you affirm a football move is subjective and the ref himself affirmed that Dez catch was good because of a football move, but the NFL front office overturned a ruling on replay on a subjective criteria..

 

[KJJ]

Nobody said he was using the ground to aid in the catch, all I said was if touched the ground. I said it was a catch because he secured possession before the ball hit.

Mike Pereira said the same thing.

I never claimed you said he used the ground to aid in the catch. I was simply pointing out that he never used the ground to aid in the catch. You could never clearly see if the ball touched the ground because his hands were under the ball.

 

[KJJ]

So basically you affirm a football move is subjective and the ref himself affirmed that Dez catch was good because of a football move, but the NFL front office overturned a ruling on replay on a subjective criteria..

What's not subjective is the turn up field. If there's a catch and a turn up field that's a "football move." Everything else is up to the judgment of the official. I've already given a detailed account why what Dez did wasn't a "football move" and I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

 

[percyhoward]

What's not subjective is the turn up field. If there's a catch and a turn up field that's a "football move." Everything else is up to the judgment of the official.

Not true. Reaching to break the plane is also a football move. Blandino's only defense was that the reach "needed to be more obvious."

Why would he say that if the football move didn't even matter? Obviously, the football move did matter, and he knew it.

 

[nathanlt]

This one is for Blandino and anyone who defends him.

 

[KJJ]

Not true. Reaching to break the plane is also a football move. Blandino's only defense was that the reach "needed to be more obvious."

Why would he say that if the football move didn't even matter?

If the catch process and football move didn't matter on this play, why didn't Blandino just say so?

https://twitter.com/DeanBlandino?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

 

[KJJ]

Not true. Reaching to break the plane is also a football move. Blandino's only defense was that the reach "needed to be more obvious."

From all the many times I've heard Blandino and Pereira discuss the play, once a receiver is deemed "going to the ground" the receiver must complete the process of maintaining possession of the ball through the contact of the ground. Dez's reach for the endzone was pointed out to Blandino and he was asked isn't that a "football move?" He said once the receiver is "going to the ground" they still have to complete the process. He and Pereira agreed once the receiver is "going to the ground" they have to complete the process regardless of a reach or anything else.

 

[rpntex]

There wasn't any mistake you're just trying to start an argument. That makes you look bad. Controversial and bad calls are different. If you don't like me defending the officiating too bad. Everyone who says we got screwed on the Dez call and that there's a conspiracy against the Cowboys not only look bad but look ridiculous.

I actually believe you. There wasn't any "mistake". It was intentional. You know good and well what you were saying, and now you're trying to move the goalpost, changing the parameters of your "argument". It's quite obvious.

FWIW, can you show me a single post I have made that has been critical of the officiating in ANY DALLAS game ? Nor am I complaining about officiating here. And no, I'm not "trying to start an argument". You've done an excellent job of that without my help.

But you just can keep on telling yourself whatever you want. Anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension can see which one of us looks bad in this dialogue.

 

[rpntex]

Too bad your persistence to butt in to try and start an argument won't allow you stay out of this. LandryFan said "I never once complained about anyone that preceded him." He's saying he never once complained "on this board" about anyone who preceded Blandino. I said "That's because we never had a controversial call go against us in a playoff game. We have one call go against us in a playoff game 2 years ago that was CONFIRMED by the league to be the correct call and all of a sudden Blandino becomes a clown in your eyes. Now we have the Butler call in which Blandino had nothing to do with but you're putting the blame on him." Dude, we're discussing what can be found in our archives on this board, not what happened 39 years ago in the SB with Swann and Benny Barnes. What LandryFan has said over the years off this board no one will ever know, our discussion has to do with what's been said on this board. Got it?

Yeah, I got it… You stuck your foot in your mouth and now you're changing your story, qualifying it, and adding it a bunch of "yeah, buts...". Meanwhile, that foot of yours just keeps getting deeper and deeper into your mouth.

There was nothing in LF's post that said anything about "the archives of this board". You added that after he brought up the Barnes play in SB X.

You may they brought blanket statement, and when called on it, you started backtracking and sidestepping. Yeah, I get it just fine. So does everyone else who reads this board.

 

[KJJ]

I actually believe you. There wasn't any "mistake". It was intentional. You know good and well what you were saying, and now you're trying to move the goalpost, changing the parameters of your "argument". It's quite obvious.

FWIW, can you show me a single post I have made that has been critical of the officiating in ANY DALLAS game ? Nor am I complaining about officiating here. And no, I'm not "trying to start an argument". You've done an excellent job of that without my help.

But you just can keep on telling yourself whatever you want. Anybody with an ounce of reading comprehension can see which one of us looks bad in this dialogue.

I know what I was saying and so does LandryFAN which is why he didn't make a big deal of it. Did you notice that? You're the one coming around with an agenda to try and stir up trouble and you weren't even part of the discussion me and him were having. You're the last one to be knocking anyone's reading comprehension when you have no clue what we were talking about. You cherry picked a couple of my comments to try and fit your agenda and made yourself look silly. Where did I say you were critical of the officiating? Never said you were critical of the officiating or complaining about it, you just came around to start a fight. Now wipe that egg off your face and get going.