Blandino

[DallasEast]

​

 

[pugilist]

Vomit inducing

I want very bad things to happen to that dbag

 

[DallasInDC]

​

So basically he is saying we still don't know what a catch is...It was called a catch and after review we decided to stay with the ruling on the field....If it was called incomplete, we would have upheld the call....this is such bs.

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

There's no way Baldwin's throw to Russel Wilson in the Eagles game can be a td and Dez isn't. They didn't even review it. He caught it, and on his way to the ground lost control of the ball at the end.

 

[KJJ]

Nelson wasn't going to the ground and he did make a slight turn of his body after the catch which the NFL has deemed a football move on a couple of other similar plays. Blandino said the play was close and that he would prefer that play to be called an incompletion on the field but because it was very close and called a TD they stuck with the call on the field. There's no similarity between that play and the Dez play because Nelson "wasn't going to the ground." I saw nothing wrong with Blandino's explanation.

 

[StarGazer1]

Dez's catch at Green Bay was ruled a catch on the field, but Blandino didn't have a problem overturning that call.

 

[TwoDeep3]

So let me get this straight. There isn't a man-jack here, and ladies too, that believes Cole Beasley did not catch that ball that left his hands as he dived for the endzone a few games ago.

So what is the difference here?

I am all for favoring Dallas in things like this, but being rational is a requirement.

 

[DogFace]

Nelson wasn't going to the ground and he did make a slight turn of his body after the catch which the NFL has deemed a football move on a couple of other similar plays. Blandino said the play was close and that he would prefer that play to be called an incompletion on the field but because it was very close and called a TD they stuck with the call on the field. There's no similarity between that play and the Dez play because Nelson "wasn't going to the ground." I saw nothing wrong with Blandino's explanation.

What about Wilsons?

Can a player be considered "going to the ground" after 10 steps? What about 6?

It's been covered, but since it's fun for everyone let's do it some more. Blandino, who you've been nothing if not consistent in taking up for, has contradicted himself several times since the Dez error. This is yet another time. He has the nerve to even say "if it's close we go with the ruling on the field".

Dez, after making, at least, one football move by switching the ball from his shoulder to two hands then to one while taking 3 steps, was a runner as the ref 5ft from the play determined.

There are many examples of players not having as much control as Dez nor making several football. Ives and it being called a catch. The changing of the rule wording for a year then to what it is now is more eveidence of the error he made in costing the NFL a highlight play that would stand the test of time.

 

[DogFace]

So let me get this straight. There isn't a man-jack here, and ladies too, that believes Cole Beasley did not catch that ball that left his hands as he dived for the endzone a few games ago.

So what is the difference here?

I am all for favoring Dallas in things like this, but being rational is a requirement.

As he dove or after the ball hit the ground?

 

[JohnsKey19]

So let me get this straight. There isn't a man-jack here, and ladies too, that believes Cole Beasley did not catch that ball that left his hands as he dived for the endzone a few games ago.

So what is the difference here?

I am all for favoring Dallas in things like this, but being rational is a requirement.

I thought in Beasley's case, both feet hit the ground after securing the ball and then made a clear football move extending his arms. But i also thought there was good chance the ruled catch on the field would be overturned after replay. That's primarily due to the murkiness of the catch rule. I have no idea what to expect.

I find it odd that the Russel Wilson TD catch was not even reviewed. It's very similar to Beasley's play.

 

[TheCount]

So basically he is saying we still don't know what a catch is...It was called a catch and after review we decided to stay with the ruling on the field....If it was called incomplete, we would have upheld the call....this is such bs.

I think that was actually as close as I've come to him saying the ref got it wrong. He's saying that the back judge should have ruled it incomplete, but that because he ruled it a catch (which they'd prefer he hadn't) there wasn't enough to overturn.

 

[Don Corleone]

Dez's catch at Green Bay was ruled a catch on the field, but Blandino didn't have a problem overturning that call.

And Gazoo Mike Pereira was already piping up over it before Blandino could review it. He was providing enough innuendo for Blandino to question the call. Pereira was trying to influence the call to the point where he was ready to cry if it was ruled a catch. I firmly believe they need to get these former refs off of the TV.

 

[Sarge]

Perhaps one of the reasons the NFL ratings are in the crapper is that half the fans (including myself) don't always know what a catch is. Add to that, the complete inconsistency from the refs as to what a catch is in identical situations. It's pathetic really. I thought the age of 2 I knew what a catch was.

 

[Doomsay]

Every time he opens his mouth our 2014 season dies all over again.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Dean Blandino has never refereed a game of football on any level.




YR

 

[DallasInDC]

I think that was actually as close as I've come to him saying the ref got it wrong. He's saying that the back judge should have ruled it incomplete, but that because he ruled it a catch (which they'd prefer he hadn't) there wasn't
enough to overturn.

My problem with that is that if they ruled incomplete, there wouldn't be an automatic challenge and GB would have had to decide whether to challenge the call and potentially lose a timeout in close scoring game (at that point)...only to uphold the incomplete call because they still don't know what a catch is.

 

[DallasInDC]

Perhaps one of the reasons the NFL ratings are in the crapper is that half the fans (including myself) don't always know what a catch is. Add to that, the complete inconsistency from the refs as to what a catch is in identical situations. It's pathetic
really. I thought the age of 2 I knew what a catch was.

I can say I don't watch nearly as much football as I used to because the quality of football has declined so much.

 

[Don Corleone]

Dean Blandino has never refereed a game of football on any level.




YR

He's a glorified video tech. If there is no instant replay then there is no Blandino. I am opposed to instant replay and in favor of higher referee standards. Killing instant replay will speed up the game drastically.

 

[Jenky]

There's no way Baldwin's throw to Russel Wilson in the Eagles game can be a td and Dez isn't. They didn't even review it. He caught it, and on his way to the ground lost control of the ball at the end.

I saw the play and know what you mean, but they'll say it was football move. It's such ******** because the NFL keeps playing the semantics game trying to cover their own ***. It's its beyond ridiculous.

This guy should have been fired a long time ago.

 

[mrmojo]

Back when there was no instant replay there seems to have been less griping, the call may have been questionable but they accepted it and moved on. Instant replay was supposed to get the call right but it seems to have muddied the waters even more.