No, I'm not saying Blandino saw Dez reach with 2 hands - what I'm saying is Blandino fumbled thorough his answer a little, as I suspect we all would at times if we had to give spur of the moment answers with a microphone in our face.
So now you're saying he was nervous and just said something that didn't make sense. You're not even trying to explain it anymore.
But it doesn't change the fact that he continued on to say it was all done as part of Dez's momentum going to the ground, and it doesn't change the fact that, Bladino did not say reaching with 2 hands would have established Dez as a runner. You can't just continue to pretend he didn't say the things that you would prefer he hadn't said.
I'm assuming he said what he meant to say.
On the official’s overturn of Dez Bryant’s catch on 4th and 2 after review:
“This is very similar to the Calvin Johnson play where Bryant is going to the ground to make the catch and the rule is pretty clear that when you go to the ground to make the catch you have to hold on to it throughout that entire process. When Dez hits the ground with his left arm the ball hits the ground it pops loose into the air and that is all part of the catch process that makes it an incomplete pass.”
He makes a comparison to another play that was also ruled incomplete, and says Dez went to the ground to make the catch, in the same way Johnson did. He says Dez was still in the act of catching the pass when he went to the ground. He describes what we all see when we watch the end of the play (ball coming out), and reminds us that Item 1 says he's got to hold on when he hits the ground. That if it pops loose, then Dez didn't complete the catch process.
On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:
“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”
He's asked if Dez's reach could be considered a football move, which in 2014 would have completed the catch process. He says they looked at it and said it wasn't clearly a reach, but was instead all part of his momentum in going to the ground. He contrasted Dez's "unclear" reach with "clear" reaches -- the types of reaches that were considered football moves in 2014. He reminds us again that the ball indeed did come loose when Dez hit the ground, and that his application of Item 1 was consistent with the other times it was applied.
That last question, by the way, is the point at which he could have simply said, "The football move does not trump going to the ground," if that were the rule at the time
On why this is a rule and why is the rule written this way:
“I think that’s a fair point. I think people look at that and they say that is a catch but I think it is about consistency and it’s about, ok if we make that a catch then we’ve got to look at all these other plays where receivers go to the ground and where do we draw the line? Currently we have a line where control, both feet and then do something with it. If we make this a catch, then where do we draw the line with a lot of other plays where it’s clearly incomplete by rule and it can become even more inconsistent. It’s something that we’ll review with the Competition Committee – we review every year. I understand that people are upset. It looks like a catch and I don’t think that’s that far-fetched, but it’s something in order to be consistent we have to draw the line somewhere and that’s where the current line is.”
They ask him to explain why a player who goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass should have to maintain control after he hits the ground. He says that you have to draw the line between "catch" and "no catch" somewhere, and that currently the NFL draws that line at control + 2 feet + football move. If the NFL makes Dez's play (in which the payer did not make a football move) a catch, then they still have to draw a line between plays like Dez's that seem like catches and plays that obviously are not catches, (plays where the receiver hits the ground much sooner after 2 feet down, for example).
Here's a good example of the two different types of plays he's talking about. In any case, he's giving yet another answer in which he's alluding to the catch process and the football move. "Control, both feet, and do something with it" is the catch process, and the "do something with it" part is the football move.
On why Dez Bryant wasn’t marked down where his elbow went down:
“Because he is not a runner yet. He has not established possession. A runner who’s established possession, absolutely. The minute his elbow hits, the minute the knee hits, he’s down by contact. Here, he’s still a receiver attempting to catch the pass so it’s treated differently and the moment that elbow hits the ball hits the ground as well and it pops up so that’s the application of the rule that was done here. He’s not a runner – he’s a receiver trying to gain possession.”
This is a great question. Aren't you down if any part of your body besides feet or hands touch the ground, and doesn't that end the play? Yes, but only if you have first established yourself as a runner (See
"runner" vs. "receiver"). According to Blandino, Dez didn't establish himself as a runner, so he never actually gained possession. (In order to become a runner in 2014, you needed control + 2 feet + football move.) Here, it's very important to realize that a "runner" in 2014 did not necessarily have to be upright, he only had to be in possession of a live ball. So when he says "Dez is not a runner yet," it can't be read as "Dez wasn't upright long enough." That didn't become a rule until 2015. The confusion over the term "runner" is probably the #1 obstacle that prevents people from understanding this stuff.
That's the entire interview. What exactly are you under the impression that I'm pretending he didn't say?
