DMN: NFL VP of Officiating: It’s not unreasonable to watch everything Dez did and think

[KJJ]

To add to Blandino's screwed up explanation, In his explanation right after the game he said that Dez didn't make enough of a football move. When pressed on the issue in an interview a few hours later (after he'd had time to dissect his earlier answer) he said that they determined that Dez indisputably did not make a football move. Then, as you stated, he took the tact of completely steering away from that aspect of the play...(kind of like a magician using slight of hand in an attempt to fool the audience). There has been so much debate on the "football move" part of the play, that for hime to say that Dez "indisputably did not make a football move" is simply asinine.

The play would have never been as controversial had the NFL not come up with a "football move" or "an act common to the game." It just added confusion to the entire play which is why the NFL has done away with both terms.

 

[LandryFan]

All calls come down to "judgment" the refs judgment and the fans judgment. The calls that have been screwed up the league owns up to them. There's been screwed up calls that have cost refs and their crews their job. I'm sure some of the calls you claim that are screwed up by the NFL are screwed up in your opinion. The Dez call wasn't screwed up but according to many FANS here it was screwed up.

To me, it comes down to having "indisputable evidence" to overturn a call. I guess you're of the mind that Dez indisputable did not make a football move. If there's any question in your mind of that, then they shouldn't have reversed the call. That's all I'm saying.

 

[5Stars]

There wasn't "conclusive" evidence that the ball hit the ground and not bounced off Cobb's hands. I've watched the play several times from the only angle that's provided and you simply can't tell for sure if the ball is bouncing off the ground or Cobb's hands. Dez caught the ball but under the RULE he didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground.

I'm willing to bet that you and Blandino never played a down of football or any team sport. Or, that you are Blandino's cousin or something.

Tell us how Romo could not beat a one legged Rodgers.

 

[LandryFan]

The play would have never been as controversial had the NFL not come up with a "football move" or "an act common to the game." It just added confusion to the entire play which is why the NFL has done away with both terms.

Except that a "football move" was a part of the rulebook in determining a catch at the time of Dez's catch. Doesn't matter that they took it out after the fact. That, to me, validates the point that aspects of the play were very much disputable and, therefore, should not have been changed.

 

[KJJ]

To me, it comes down to having "indisputable evidence" to overturn a call. I guess you're of the mind that Dez indisputable did not make a football move. If there's any question in your mind of that, then they shouldn't have reversed the call. That's all I'm saying.

I never said Dez didn't make a "football move" I said he 100% did make a "football move" in what my opinion of a "football move" is. What's indisputable is that Dez was going to the ground and didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground which is why the call was reversed. You might want to read all my posts in this thread.

 

[5Stars]

Except that a "football move" was a part of the rulebook in determining a catch at the time of Dez's catch. Doesn't matter that they took it out after the fact. That, to me, validates the point that aspects of the play were very much disputable and, therefore, should not have been changed.

That's right...and it took some time before Blandino, sitting at his TV making a ridiculous ruling.

 

[blindzebra]

There wasn't "conclusive" evidence that the ball hit the ground and not bounced off Cobb's hands. I've watched the play several times from the only angle that's provided and you simply can't tell for sure if the ball is bouncing off the ground or Cobb's hands. Dez caught the ball but under the RULE he didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground.

LOL, are you serious? All your football experts are on record saying Cobb did not catch it, hell Pereira said during the broadcast it should be ruled incomplete.

 

[5Stars]

I never said Dez didn't make a "football move" I said he 100% did make a "football move" in what my opinion of a "football move" is. What's indisputable is that Dez was going to the ground and didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground which is why the call was reversed. You might want to read all my posts in this thread.

How would you know what a football move is...you never played the game.

 

[KJJ]

Except that a "football move" was a part of the rulebook in determining a catch at the time of Dez's catch. Doesn't matter that they took it out after the fact. That, to me, validates the point that aspects of the play were very much disputable and, therefore, should not have been changed.

It was part of the rule book but it's the judgment of the referee as to if a player made a "football move." It's too subjective therefore they removed the term from the rule book. It really doesn't matter if Dez made a "football move" that goes out the window once a receiver is "going to the ground" they still must complete the process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

 

[KJJ]

LOL, are you serious? All your football experts are on record saying Cobb did not catch it, hell Pereira said during the broadcast it should be ruled incomplete.

The ruling could have gone either way. I gave my opinion on the Cobb play from the only angle I had and you can't conclusively tell if the ball bounced off his hands or the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

It was part of the rule book but it's the judgment of the referee as to if a player made a "football move." It's too subjective therefore they removed the term from the rule book. It really doesn't matter if Dez made a "football move" that goes out the window once a receiver is "going to the ground" they still must complete the process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

Only going OOB or in the end zone. They made that up after the fact.

 

[blindzebra]

The ruling could have gone either way. I gave my opinion on the Cobb play from the only angle I had and you can't conclusively tell if the ball bounced off his hands or the ground.

You are so full of it.

 

[KJJ]

You are so full of it.

I give honest opinions your opinions are biased. There's no way to be 100% certain on the angle that's provided whether the ball bounced off the ground or Cobb's hands.

 

[5Stars]

The ruling could have gone either way. I gave my opinion on the Cobb play from the only angle I had and you can't conclusively tell if the ball bounced off his hands or the ground.

You always give credit to other teams but are against anything that pertains to the Cowboys. Yeah, you are just a fan and not a FAN.

Pathetic...

 

[5Stars]

I give honest opinions your opinions are biased.

lmao...I have heard it all now!

 

[blindzebra]

I give honest opinions your opinions are biased.

No you purposely play contrarian to get your jollys, an honest opinion requires dealing with issues instead of always retreating to well Blandino said so, so it is correct.

Answer the questions:

What is the intent of the Calvin Johnson Rule?

Why was a football move ever part of the discussion if the 3 step catch process was not relevant?

 

[5Stars]

You are so full of it.

That's because he is not a FAN. lol

 

[KJJ]

No you purposely play contrarian to get your jollys, an honest opinion requires dealing with issues instead of always retreating to well Blandino said so, so it is correct.

Answer the questions:

What is the intent of the Calvin Johnson Rule?

Why was a football move ever part of the discussion if the 3 step catch process was not relevant?

I don't come here to play games I'm here to engage in serious football discussion with other knowledgeable fans. If it were me I would have called an incompletion on the Cobb play because the ball bounced. Appears you get your jollies by wasting the time of those who choose to be objective and understand the game. If you want to know what the intent of the Calvin Johnson rule is as well as other rule questions go do some research or ask someone involved in making the rules so you'll accept the answers better.

 

[LandryFan]

No you purposely play contrarian to get your jollys, an honest opinion requires dealing with issues instead of always retreating to well Blandino said so, so it is correct.

Answer the questions:

What is the intent of the Calvin Johnson Rule?

Why was a football move ever part of the discussion if the 3 step catch process was not relevant?

 

[blindzebra]

I don't come here to play games I'm here to engage in serious football discussion with other knowledgeable fans. If it were me I would have called an incompletion on the Cobb play because the ball bounced. Appears you get your jollies by wasting the time of those who choose to be objective and understand the game. If you want to know what the intent of the Calvin Johnson rule is as well as other rule questions go do some research or ask someone involved in making the rules so you'll accept the answers better.

I take that as you knowing that to answer those questions your BS gets exposed. I don't need to do research I KNOW THE ANSWERS.