Whats the Rule on Instant Replay?

[craig71]

Most likely. They will stick behind him yada yada yada, to show support for their officiating crews...

and also, all those friends he has back home right now, Love Him. Love him!!!

I didn't read the article but I thought I saw a headline that said he suffers from depression/ptsd. Will have to look that up and read to see if they are portraying him as a victim in this debacle.

Craig

 

[JoeBoBBY]

You are right about that. I thought it was a 36 second runoff when all was said and done. If I didn't know better I would have though the replacement refs were back in town.


Craig

I didn't even realize this until I read it on CZ yesterday.

That is so bad. I also think someone on the Cowboys Staff, should have noticed that. You know, someone should be assigned these things, some stat-head or bean-counter.....I dont know?

I don't blame the HC and coordinators, they were in SHOCK like the rest of the country.....

But thats exactly why you need stat-heads and bean counters. Its their job to ignore the game , and just "keep track". Heck you get a college kid to do it for free!

 

[tyke1doe]

They get 2, but it has nothing to do with the halves. They can use both in the first minute of the game if they want.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[LandryFan]

The quote from Steratore basically sounds like he set out looking to confirm the call as opposed to over turn it. He said he looked for a football move and didn't see one. He used the wrong criteria for a replay question, from my understanding. The problem is that you're having to prove a negative for what he had to do, and that's very hard to do with judgement calls to any extent.

I think the overturn is more likely if its not called a catch and you review it then how they did it. It's easier to find the affirmative proof then to find the negative proof. Basically I'm at the point of saying Steratore isn't a good ref because he doesn't really apply the rules correctly.

Don't forget that Steratore had good OL' Dan Blandino in his ear during the review.

 

[LandryFan]

Which that evidence never surfaced. It was like they took out their rulebook and say were going by this to overturn it because they ABSOLUTELY have no evidence whatsoever. The problem with their statement is the "I dont think" statement. Thats nothing more than interpretation. The ruling on the field call trumps an interpretation by the booth.

So all of this is based on interpretation? Sounds very fishy.....

Here's the worst part, IMO...immediately after the game, Blandino was on TV stating that Dez did not complete the act of making a catch, per the rule as written...no mention of Dez making or not making a football move. Then In a later TV appearance, someone questioning him on the overturn brought up that if Dez makes a football move, then it was a catch because he had by rule competed the act. Blandino's reply was that "in our JUDGEMENT (his and Steratore's), he did did not make ENOUGH of a move (referring to Dez stretching for the goal line) to have performed an act common to the game (a football move). After that, some in the media started questioning his explanation of Dez's stretch effort not being "enough of a move" as not being a basis for "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call. In his very next TV appearance on the subject, he said that there was indisputable evidence that Dez did not make a football move. I'm not making this up. The guy kept adding to his story as he went along. I have gotten over this thing, but this whole thing smells like a big old bag of horse ****!

 

[ConstantReboot]

Here's the worst part, IMO...immediately after the game, Blandino was on TV stating that Dez did not complete the act of making a catch, per the rule as written...no mention of Dez making or not making a football move. Then In a later TV appearance, someone questioning him on the overturn brought up that if Dez makes a football move, then it was a catch because he had by rule competed the act. Blandino's reply was that "in our JUDGEMENT (his and Steratore's), he did did not make ENOUGH of a move (referring to Dez stretching for the goal line) to have performed an act common to the game (a football move). After that, some in the media started questioning his explanation of Dez's stretch effort not being "enough of a move" as not being a basis for "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call. In his very next TV appearance on the subject, he said that there was indisputable evidence that Dez did not make a football move. I'm not making this up. The guy kept adding to his story as he went along. I have gotten over this thing, but this whole thing smells like a big old bag of horse ****!

Wow just wow. I can't believe this is happening. The more they talk, the more they are lying up their teeth.

I know what you mean when you want to put this aside. I do to but my curiosity is killing me and all I really want is answers.

When they say he did not make ENOUGH of a football move that means there was a football move and thus their argument is shot.

When they say that in our JUDGEMENT that means that they were biased to calling it rather than basing it on factual evidence.

I find it disturbing that there is a lot of ambiguity being brought up with their argument and not enough facts.

I like to put this aside but I just can't. I just don't think its right to just let this go. An injustice took place of massive proportion and its being swept under the table. I don't think this will end very well......

 

[percyhoward]

In his very next TV appearance on the subject, he said that there was indisputable evidence that Dez did not make a football move. I'm not making this up. The guy kept adding to his story as he went along.

That's nothing. See my sig. This is the same person talking, one year ago.

 

[LandryFan]

That's nothing. See my sig. This is the same person talking, one year ago.

Yep. I saw your post on this topic earlier pointing that out. They will do the lawyer dance until this thing finally blows over. That is their strategy and it will work. People will talk less about it with each passing day until it is no longer talked about and they know that.

To add one last thing, I fail to see how any judgment call can be indisputable. By definition, "judgement" implies "opinion". All opinions are disputable.

 

[MagicMan]

Here's the worst part, IMO...immediately after the game, Blandino was on TV stating that Dez did not complete the act of making a catch, per the rule as written...no mention of Dez making or not making a football move. Then In a later TV appearance, someone questioning him on the overturn brought up that if Dez makes a football move, then it was a catch because he had by rule competed the act. Blandino's reply was that "in our JUDGEMENT (his and Steratore's), he did did not make ENOUGH of a move (referring to Dez stretching for the goal line) to have performed an act common to the game (a football move). After that, some in the media started questioning his explanation of Dez's stretch effort not being "enough of a move" as not being a basis for "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call. In his very next TV appearance on the subject, he said that there was indisputable evidence that Dez did not make a football move. I'm not making this up. The guy kept adding to his story as he went along. I have gotten over this thing, but this whole thing smells like a big old bag of horse ****!

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
― Mark Twain

 

[cowboys69fan]

"What's the Rule on instant reply? "

Make sure Gene Steratore is not the one reviewing.