Dean Blandino's explanation

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
[QUwe'reE="KJJ, cleart: 7214141, member: 24819"]Is this clear enough for you or do you consider those pictures optical illusions? :laugh: They've only been posted more than a dozen times on this board. Try opening your eyes!

sLlQpYx.jpg


m16EPyO.jpg
Asside from the clear football move we're just supposed to pretend Blandino had access to this cut up during his review?

Blandino didn't need that because Dez had the ball in one hand, reached and slammed the ball on the turf causing the ball to pop up. It was obvious on replay the ball contacted the ground, it would have been impossible for the ball not to have contacted the ground the way Dez was holding it.
 

Bleedblue1111

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
2,677
obvious post: 7215195 said:
Asside from the clear football move we're just supposed to pretend Blandino had access to this cut up during his review?

Blandino didn't need that because Dez had the ball in one hand, reached and slammed the ball on the turf causing the ball to pop up. It was obvious on replay the ball contacted the ground, it would have been impossible for the ball not to have contacted the ground the way Dez was holding it.
It was obvious during the "live reviews" that Dez came up with chalk on his wrist and forearm and none on the ball too. Depends on what you're looking for, to state the obvious. Huh?

In my opinion, it was inconclusive during "real time" replays that we were all shown, that the ball hit the ground. Blandino then used his own judgement to overturn the call made on the field. That goes against their own policy. Given evidence of this, why is he V.P. of officiating? That's an easy policy to adhere to.
 
Last edited:

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
Asside from the clear football move, we're just supposed to pretend Blandino had access to this cut up during his review?

Blandino had access to these screen shots of the replay and the way the ball is positioned in Dez's hand it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for none of the ball to contact the ground. Care to dispute that? Dez's hand isn't under the ball, it's to the side with the lower half of the ball exposed and that's how it impacted the ground. The ball contacted the ground in that position causing it to pop up and come loose.

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_686_zpseybeogbv.jpeg

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_685_zpsuicjodgb.jpeg
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
It was obvious during the "live reviews" that Dez came up with chalk on his wrist and forearm and none on the ball too. Depends on what you're looking for, to state the obvious. Huh?

In my opinion, it was inconclusive during "real time" replays that we were all shown, that the ball hit the ground. Blandino then used his own judgement to overturn the call made on the field. That goes against their own policy. Given evidence of this, why is he V.P. of officiating? That's an easy policy to adhere to.

Did you even look at the pics I posted? The ball didn't land on the chalk it landed just prior to the chalk and Dez's wrist and forearm contacted the chalk. The ball bounced up prior to the chalk line and missed it. Some of you ignore the obvious, no wonder you can't figure out these calls or maybe it's just continuing to be in denial. For a call on the field to be overturned there has to be conclusive evidence the call was wrong and there was conclusive evidence it was wrong because the ball came loose when it contacted the ground.
 

Bleedblue1111

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
2,677
You'reOsaying"KJJ, post: 7215226, member: 24819"]Blandino had access to these screen shots of the replay and the way the ballis is positioned in Dez'sis hand it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for none of the ball to contact the ground. Care to dispute that? Dez's hand isn't under the ball, it's to the side with the lower half of the ball exposed and that's how it impacted the ground. The ball contacted the ground in that position causing it to pop up and come loose.

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_686_zpseybeogbv.jpeg

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_685_zpsuicjodgb.jpeg[/QUOTE]
You're saying its ok to use judgement, while there is no clear visual evidence in any of these shots to support that it was conclusive evidence. This is the point I was making.
 

Bleedblue1111

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
2,677
TE="KJJ, post: 7215233, member: 24819"]Did you even look at the pics I posted? The ball didn't land on the chalk it landed just prior to the chalk and Dez's wrist and forearm contacted the chalk. The ball bounced up prior to the chalk line and missed it. Some of you ignore the obvious, no wonder you can't figure out these calls or maybe it's just continuing to be in denial. For a call on the field to be overturned there has to be conclusive evidence the call was wrong and there was conclusive evidence it was wrong because the ball came loose when it contacted the ground.[/QUOTE]


Once again, Blandino did not have access to those shots or cut ups during the game. The evidence is supposed to be conclusive to overturn a call on the field. No judgement is supposed to be used. Being the V.P. of officiating, he should know this.
 
Last edited:

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
16,873
No they held in Atlanta too. They always hold. They are never flagged for it however, because they always do it. There was actually an article on here explaining that its how they practice.
Well i dont know the rules, but some holding is legal, and the packers do practice legal holding and probably take it to the limit,
and avoid things refs look for.
But the holding didnt allow them to beat atlanta, so why use that as a excuse for beating the cowboys??
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
16,873
Did you even look at the pics I posted? The ball didn't land on the chalk it landed just prior to the chalk and Dez's wrist and forearm contacted the chalk. The ball bounced up prior to the chalk line and missed it. Some of you ignore the obvious, no wonder you can't figure out these calls or maybe it's just continuing to be in denial. For a call on the field to be overturned there has to be conclusive evidence the call was wrong and there was conclusive evidence it was wrong because the ball came loose when it contacted the ground.
it isnt "conclusive" it is debatable, thats why it is still being debated right now lol, if it was clear evidence there would be no debating afterwards,
the call should have stayed with what was called on the field, and same is true if they had called it incomplete.
 

Bleedblue1111

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
2,677
it isnt "conclusive" it is debatable, thats why it is still being debated right now lol, if it was clear evidence there would be no debating afterwards,
the call should have stayed with what was called on the field, and same is true if they had called it incomplete.
I don't have any likes yet, but I agree with your statement 100%.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
it isnt "conclusive" it is debatable, thats why it is still being debated right now lol, if it was clear evidence there would be no debating afterwards,
the call should have stayed with what was called on the field, and same is true if they had called it incomplete.

The ball coming loose wasn't debatable it was clear cut. It was a controversial call and will continue to be because most don't like the RULE and many don't understand it. It's still being debated here and will never stop being debated here because this is a FAN board. lol
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
You're arguing with those who implemented the RULE and the league...
Again, if you can't explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that you say wouldn't have made a difference anyway, then you should consider the possibility that others might understand more than you about this topic.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
You'reOsaying"KJJ, post: 7215226, member: 24819"]Blandino had access to these screen shots of the replay and the way the ballis is positioned in Dez'sis hand it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for none of the ball to contact the ground. Care to dispute that? Dez's hand isn't under the ball, it's to the side with the lower half of the ball exposed and that's how it impacted the ground. The ball contacted the ground in that position causing it to pop up and come loose.

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_686_zpseybeogbv.jpeg

http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_685_zpsuicjodgb.jpeg
You're saying its ok to use judgement, while there is no clear visual evidence in any of these shots to support that it was conclusive evidence. This is the point I was making.

There was CLEAR visual evidence the ball came loose as it contacted the ground. Once it was determined Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground which was pretty obvious it was, he had to complete the process and he didn't.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
Again, if you can't explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that you say wouldn't have made a difference anyway, then you should consider the possibility that others might understand more than you about this topic.

I already explained why he did, it was part of analyzing the entire play. Nothing anyone says is ever going to satisfy you because you LOVE arguing this topic it's become a passion.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
TE="KJJ, post: 7215233, member: 24819"]Did you even look at the pics I posted? The ball didn't land on the chalk it landed just prior to the chalk and Dez's wrist and forearm contacted the chalk. The ball bounced up prior to the chalk line and missed it. Some of you ignore the obvious, no wonder you can't figure out these calls or maybe it's just continuing to be in denial. For a call on the field to be overturned there has to be conclusive evidence the call was wrong and there was conclusive evidence it was wrong because the ball came loose when it contacted the ground.


Once again, Blandino did not have access to those shots or cut ups during the game. The evidence is supposed to be conclusive to overturn a call on the field. No judgement is supposed to be used. Being the V.P. of officiating, he should know this.

Blandino had access to the replay which those screen shots were taken from. He and the official had everything they needed to make the correct call. By the way, if you want to quote me just click "reply" on my post and the quote will appear and I'll receive an alert.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
It was obvious during the "live reviews" that Dez came up with chalk on his wrist and forearm and none on the ball too. Depends on what you're looking for, to state the obvious. Huh?

In my opinion, it was inconclusive during "real time" replays that we were all shown, that the ball hit the ground. Blandino then used his own judgement to overturn the call made on the field. That goes against their own policy. Given evidence of this, why is he V.P. of officiating? That's an easy policy to adhere to.
That's field judge Terry Brown on the left, with a clear view of the ball hitting the ground and popping up into the air.
http://i465.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr16/KJJ100/fullsizeoutput_685_zpsuicjodgb.jpeg

Brown ruled Dez down by contact at that point, which was the correct call. Once Dez completed the catch process, he was then a runner and since he was contacted, the play ended the moment he hit the ground. You've often heard, "the ground can't cause a fumble." For runners who have been contacted, that's true. That's why Brown ruled this a catch, instead of a fumble or incomplete pass.

It's important that the call on the field was a catch and down by contact. It meant the catch process had been completed, and any overturn would have to be based on indisputable evidence that it hadn't been. The only way for Blandino to say Dez went to the ground in the act of catching a pass was to first prove that he didn't have control, two feet down, and a football move. Blandino knew this, so he said that the football move (the reach) needed to be "more obvious," and that Dez needed to "reach with two hands" or "extend the ball toward the goal line." The entire overturn hinges on that explanation.

At the time this frame was captured, the catch had already been made. This is not a guy trying to catch a football, it's a guy hitting the ground with the nose of the ball in his dominant hand, and the ball tucked against his forearm. You know that, I know that, everybody who sees the picture knows that. Terry Brown knew that.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
It was part of analyzing the entire play.
He wasn't analyzing the entire play. This is what I mean by "do your homework."

He was specifically asked why the reach wasn't a football move. He answered, "the reach needed to be more obvious than that." You can conclude that he meant the reach needed to be more obvious than that in order to be considered a football move.

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.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
There was CLEAR visual evidence the ball came loose as it contacted the ground. Once it was determined Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground which was pretty obvious it was, he had to complete the process and he didn't.
No part of the 2014 rule book that says that. There is nothing in there about a player's momentum negating the catch process. In fact, there's nothing about momentum at all.

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is in bounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)​

The subsection you keep referring to applies only if he's still in the act of catching a pass (meaning he hasn't completed a, b, and c above), and is only concerned with what happens when he contacts the ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.
So if the ball comes loose when he hits the ground, but he is not still in the act of catching a pass (because he has completed a, b, and c), then "incomplete" is not an option. The only options are "fumble" (if he hasn't been contacted) or "down by contact" (if he has been contacted).

On the Dez play, the ruling on the field was "down by contact." We know it wasn't "fumble" because Dez regained control in the end zone and the official didn't give a touchdown signal. So the official must have seen the contact that sent Dez to the ground. Remember, "incomplete" is not an option. In order for Blandino to change the ruling on the field from "complete" to "incomplete," he had to go further back -- all the way back into the catch process. Now it becomes a question of completing steps a, b, and c.

Now it's about the catch process.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,854
Reaction score
40,033
Not wasting anymore time on this.
 

nathanlt

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
3,063
Not wasting anymore time on this.

You statement is a lie. You will waste your time defending Blandino's tampering with the game. You always have. Everyone knows it, and you'll keep losing the argument, because Blandino violated the written rulebook as explained to you several times. It's definitive, conclusive, Dez caught that ball, and Blandino took away the catch without any basis whatsoever in the rulebook. His explanation is irrelevant, so is yours. The written rules stand forever in judgement of such foolishness.
 

LandryFan

Proud Native Texan, USMC-1972-79, USN-1983-2000
Messages
7,400
Reaction score
6,347
Again, if you can't explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that you say wouldn't have made a difference anyway, then you should consider the possibility that others might understand more than you about this topic.
I'm still trying to figure out who "the league" is. I never heard Goodell give his take on the overturn, and I don't think there's anyone between Blandino and Goodell in the chain of command, so who that matters, besides blandino himself or an official that reports to blandino, confirmed that Blandino didn't screw up when he overturned the call based on his judgment rather than indisputable visual evidence. Simply put, judgment does not equal indisputable. Judgment, by definition, is disputable.
 
Top