Dean Blandino is calling Dez catch, not a catch for game last night

[tyke1doe]

It was a catch.

We can debate back and forth whether it was or wasn't a catch. The bottom line is this: What separates opinion from fact in many cases is the authority who is able to enforce what is truth and what is not.
Neither you nor I have the authority to determine a call. The refs on the field and the league officiating body do.
And they said it was a non-catch and did not apologize or amend their ruling. And, really, their declaration is the only thing that ultimately matters because it establishes the final say.

 

[aikemirv]

the elbow does touch but dean blandino says (now get this) the foot does show touching the ground, but dean blandino doesnt recognize the foot as a body part, and he is head nfl ref, a guy that has never refed an nfl game on the field in his life, didnt play college or pro football either

Both feet would have to touch before the elbow or one knee.

It was not a catch!

 

[aikemirv]

We can debate back and forth whether it was or wasn't a catch. The bottom line is this: What separates opinion from fact in many cases is the authority who is able to enforce what is truth and what is not.
Neither you nor I have the authority to determine a call. The refs on the field and the league officiating body do.
And they said it was a non-catch and did not apologize or amend their ruling. And, really, their declaration is the only thing that ultimately matters because it establishes the final say.

That's deep but authority does not determine fact.

 

[DABOYZ]

Close this thread, I just wasted 76 seconds of my life only to find out the OP was talking about the sideline catch.

 

[Seven]

Dean Blabino.............dude sells Chevys on Sundays and Fords on Mondays.

Best car ever..............blah, blah, blah.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

We can debate back and forth whether it was or wasn't a catch. The bottom line is this: What separates opinion from fact in many cases is the authority who is able to enforce what is truth and what is not.
Neither you nor I have the authority to determine a call. The refs on the field and the league officiating body do.
And they said it was a non-catch and did not apologize or amend their ruling. And, really, their declaration is the only thing that ultimately matters because it establishes the final say.

The refs on the field said it was a catch so, yeah, we could debate it forever.

 

[Wayne02]

The refs on the field said it was a catch so, yeah, we could debate it forever.

If it was a catch then why was it overturned to a no catch?

 

[Boyzmamacita]

If it was a catch then why was it overturned to a no catch?

Because Blandino is a jerk and he's been making up stuff about football moves ever since.

 

[JDSmith]

If it was a catch then why was it overturned to a no catch?

Because of the outcry over the supposed preferential treatment by the refs in the Lions game. To make it seem like the integrity of the game was unquestionable they ruled against the Cowboys any chance they got (see the Cobb non catch they credited him with along with the Dez screwing). There was simply no way we were going to get the benefit of any call by the league in that game. And it worked, because everyone immediately forgot the Lions game. But they didn't count on the outcry following our screwing, so they were called on countless shows to defend their decision - and since it was essentially indefensible, and they couldn't admit the truth, they played word games. Endlessly. And the outcry continued, so they went and changed the wording of the rules - supposedly to clarify them. But if they actually made the correct call they wouldn't have needed to clarify anything, the rules were in play and they followed them. Right? But they did change the wording, and now they've wasted an entire season dealing with the controversy created by their new wording and the fact that they are trying to defend what was a blown call made purely for political reasons. So we have catches every week that are under ridiculous scrutiny, and half of them get overturned as they try to apply the reworded Dez rule to them. All because they applied a bias against us in order to appear unbiased to the sheep.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Because of the outcry over the supposed preferential treatment by the refs in the Lions game. To make it seem like the integrity of the game was unquestionable they ruled against the Cowboys any chance they got (see the Cobb non catch they credited him with along with the Dez screwing). There was simply no way we were going to get the benefit of any call by the league in that game. And it worked, because everyone immediately forgot the Lions game. But they didn't count on the outcry following our screwing, so they were called on countless shows to defend their decision - and since it was essentially indefensible, and they couldn't admit the truth, they played word games. Endlessly. And the outcry continued, so they went and changed the wording of the rules - supposedly to clarify them. But if they actually made the correct call they wouldn't have needed to clarify anything, the rules were in play and they followed them. Right? But they did change the wording, and now they've wasted an entire season dealing with the controversy created by their new wording and the fact that they are trying to defend what was a blown call made purely for political reasons. So we have catches every week that are under ridiculous scrutiny, and half of them get overturned as they try to apply the reworded Dez rule to them. All because they applied a bias against us in order to appear unbiased to the sheep.

Very well put.

 

[gimmesix]

says body part has to touch the ground before dez is out of bounds, with the elbow out of bounds, so get this, the foot shows on the ground but dean blandino doesnt recognize that as a body part

He's right. It wasn't a catch. I wanted it to be, but by the time he caught it, he didn't have two feet on the ground or a body part down before the elbow hit out of bounds.

 

[tyke1doe]

The refs on the field said it was a catch so, yeah, we could debate it forever.

But even he has an overseer, Blandino.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

How is anybody arguing that this was a catch? You have to get both feet, a knee, or an elbow down inbounds while controlling the ball for it to be a sideline catch. Dez did his best and got one foot down inbounds before his elbow touched out of bounds.

This isn't college football, one foot is not enough. Nobody's targeting the Cowboys with this call, it just wasn't a catch.

This isn't a football move interpretation or whatever. This is a "both feet weren't down inbounds," not a catch slam dunk. The refs only mistake was getting it wrong the first time so it had to be reviewed.

 

[JDSmith]

How is anybody arguing that this was a catch? You have to get both feet, a knee, or an elbow down inbounds while controlling the ball for it to be a sideline catch. Dez did his best and got one foot down inbounds before his elbow touched out of bounds.

This isn't college football, one foot is not enough. Nobody's targeting the Cowboys with this call, it just wasn't a catch.

This isn't a football move interpretation or whatever. This is a "both feet weren't down inbounds," not a catch slam dunk. The refs only mistake was getting it wrong the first time so it had to be reviewed.

By my count one person in this thread, the thread starter, thought it was a catch. So really, it's not much of an argument.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

their just announcing on nfl network that dean blandino is saying the dez catch, wasnt a catch last night, the NFL needs to get rid of dean blandino and now!

Dean can surfboard his face down a flight of stairs.

 

[Redball Express]

For the purposes of the NFL, the foot is not a body part - knees, elbows, wrist, butt. Any one will constitute a catch. For feet, they both need to be down inbounds.




Different rule - based on a player going to the ground.


Fail.

Personally..

I'd like to see the NFL go to the college rules of only needing one foot inbounds for a completion.

I think both feet down leaves players defenseless trying to do it and it would even out all the rules stacked with the defense in pass defense.

I think the 5 yd rule for no contact off the LOS by DBs needs to be amended. I think football is football and letting WRs start with a 5 yd headstart is silly and gives the offense an unfair advantage and leads to ticky tacky penalties everytime they touch going down the field.

A needless rule that accomplishes nothing.

If you tackle the guy..that's one thing which you can penalize for..

but contact?

Might as well hang little flags off their belts and say no tackling.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

I'm confused by this thread......are there really people that believe that it was really a catch?

 

[Derinyar]

As far as it goes that sideline catch wasn't a catch. It was damned close to being a catch, but the ankle/knee hit just a little too late. That one isn't controversial. If he was talking that long pass to Dez being incomplete that is a very controversial call. Blandino is a rat, but at the same time that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong or bad.

 

[JDSmith]

I'm confused by this thread......are there really people that believe that it was really a catch?

Well, there is one person. But no, there don't appear to be people.