All Forums | NFL Betting Forum

You must maintain possession throughout the process

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3967
Posts: 67
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:

"The call on the field is correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence to the contrary, and then we can overturn it, and we are really trying to stick to that standard. You will see that reversals are down this year because we are not going to try to reofficiate the play in the booth. We have a ruling on the field. If it's not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned, and that's the standard that we're trying to stick to."

-Dean Blandino, NFL Head of Officiating, 
12/05/14

Pretty much all you need to know, folks. 

https://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/152685/inside-slant-nfl-replay-reversals-drop-amid-new-interpretation-for-indisputable

Ya, if your going to quote people than you have to reference the interpretation by Blandino saying that it was the correct call. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #52
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

Ya, if your going to quote people than you have to reference the interpretation by Blandino saying that it was the correct call. 

I'm aware of how quotations work, sir.

The purpose of my post is to highlight the inconsistency between Blandino's 12/05/14 statement with his statement this afternoon. I do not believe the catch/no catch today rose to the level of "clear and obviously" incomplete. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, then there would be no issue.

Also, regarding your last post, it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point. I doubt you want your point to be silent.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 26913
Posted: #53
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:


I'm aware of how quotations work, sir.

The purpose of my post is to highlight the inconsistency between Blandino's 12/05/14 statement with his statement this afternoon. I do not believe the catch/no catch today rose to the level of "clear and obviously" incomplete. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, then there would be no issue.

Also, regarding your last post, it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point. I doubt you want your point to be silent.

 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:


I'm aware of how quotations work, sir.

The purpose of my post is to highlight the inconsistency between Blandino's 12/05/14 statement with his statement this afternoon. I do not believe the catch/no catch today rose to the level of "clear and obviously" incomplete. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, then there would be no issue.

Also, regarding your last post, it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point. I doubt you want your point to be silent.
Well, you continue to talk about indisputable evidence as if it were not there, in that play.  Obviously, the officials and NFL execs think there was enough evidence to overturn. What do you not understand about that?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2011
Posts: 202
Posted: #55
It wasn't a catch. The fact you guys think you know more than these head refs is comical. They came out and said it was right, move on
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

Well, you continue to talk about indisputable evidence as if it were not there, in that play.  Obviously, the officials and NFL execs think there was enough evidence to overturn. What do you not understand about that?

Look, I understand you Eagles fans live vicariously through Cowboys' losses, but help is on the way. Chip will be trading the 2015-2024 first round picks to acquire his adopted child, so all will be well.

Anyway, if you find the play to be "100% not a catch," which (again) is the standard required with "indisputable video evidence," then that is certainly your prerogative. We're talking about a burden of proof higher than that required to convict someone of a crime. Seems like a tough argument, but to each his own. 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 226
Posted: #57
Blatant screw job/make up call.

Anyone who is saying otherwise either had/has something to gain.. Or got screwed last week.. Or is just a Cowboys hater of some kind.

How can anyone say that it was INDISPUTABLE that there was no "football move".
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 1197
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:

when does the process end?

Exactly if this rule is so then why not run bubble screens on goal line. No risk catch, take step reach if knocked out or dropped incomplete pass?  No clarification on when or was it ever a catch? Two hands on the ball , feet down . Then reaching after moving ball to hand, still the process continues? C'mon! This notion you must complete the process is the rule, but pass was called complete on field. So they had enough to reverse all that after seminal that on instant? Lol they lost not on play on the rules!!!!!
Live free or die!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1791
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:


Look, I understand you Eagles fans live vicariously through Cowboys' losses, but help is on the way. Chip will be trading the 2015-2024 first round picks to acquire his adopted child, so all will be well.

Anyway, if you find the play to be "100% not a catch," which (again) is the standard required with "indisputable video evidence," then that is certainly your prerogative. We're talking about a burden of proof higher than that required to convict someone of a crime. Seems like a tough argument, but to each his own. 


I was 100% POSITIVE that it was not a catch the second I saw the replay. The league has been making this very same ruling for the last 3 years. They have been consistent making the call too. 
For me the question was more of "after last week, will they make the call". It wasn't a matter of if it was the right call, it was a matter of if they have the balls to make the correct call (IMO).

I have to say, how ironic is it that Cowboy fans are in the position they are in after last week. The shoe is literally on the other foot. 
....and they are not handling it too well.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1090
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser:

The processended when he had 2 feetinbounds or his elbow hit jerk

Nope, you simply have not watched enough football or just don't pay attention.  Passes get called incomplete all the time when the ball hits the ground before the player stops moving.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #61
Quote Originally Posted by hockeytown71:


I was 100% POSITIVE that it was not a catch the second I saw the replay. The league has been making this very same ruling for the last 3 years. They have been consistent making the call too. 
For me the question was more of "after last week, will they make the call". It wasn't a matter of if it was the right call, it was a matter of if they have the balls to make the correct call (IMO).


You don't get it.  For all you're telling us we don't get it, here's the point.


It was not considered a catch.  He already made the catch.  He was extending into the end zone.  He took a ball he caught with 2 hands, and dove for the end zone.  He took his 2 hands off the ball, so he could use one hand, because he was in the process of forwarding the ball AFTER the catch had been made.  

Get it?

We're NOT claiming he was in the process of CATCHING the d ball!!!!!!!!!!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 1677
Posted: #62
It seems like common sense is being replaced by being over the top literal with interpreting the rules. Dude caught the ball. Stop over analyzing it. This is the kind of stuff that makes the game harder and harder to watch.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1791
Posted: #63
I have seen this called more than enough times. This was not a catch. To save the exhaustive effort, you just keep believing it's a catch and stay in your reality. 
I live in Dallas. This is just like last week.... 
You're right and the other 99% across the country got it wrong.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 1404
Posted: #64
In my view, college has always done a better view of using the correct std.    Nfl has gotten better on using the correct standard but in my view this is nothing more than recalling the play.    If u want to say it didnt look like a catch that's fine.   But to suggest that the replay shows irrefutably that Dez was not making a football move seems a little sketchy.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1791
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by ceveche88:

It seems like common sense is being replaced by being over the top literal with interpreting the rules. Dude caught the ball. Stop over analyzing it. This is the kind of stuff that makes the game harder and harder to watch.

Agreed! I cringe every time I see this  "through the process" crap. However, they have been making this call consistently for a while now. Don't like it, get rid of the rule (I'm not saying that is a bad idea either ).
At least they have been consistent. It is what it is, a bad rule.
I get it. When it happened to Calvin the first time ( it's happened a few times to him), it cost the Lions the game . I was pissed, thought it was BS. Calvin's was much worse I might add as he was getting up when he lost control. I get that the rule sucks, but this is nothing new anymore. It was incomplete 3 years ago, it was incomplete last year, it was incomplete this year, and IT WAS INCOMPLETE TODAY.

Don't girl about the call, girl about the rule. By no means am I directing that at you ceveche, just in general to anyone bitching about today's play.
For now, it WAS the right call.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2013
Posts: 15267
Posted: #66
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser:


You don't get it.  For all you're telling us we don't get it, here's the point.


It was not considered a catch.  He already made the catch.  He was extending into the end zone.  He took a ball he caught with 2 hands, and dove for the end zone.  He took his 2 hands off the ball, so he could use one hand, because he was in the process of forwarding the ball AFTER the catch had been made.  

Get it?

We're NOT claiming he was in the process of CATCHING the d ball!!!!!!!!!!

Well put!
 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 16153
Posted: #67
This league has turned into a joke. The fact that we still dont know what is a catch and what isnt is ridiculous. The fact that they ruled that not a catch just shows hoe ridiculous the rule is. It was clear as day he made an insane catch took three steps and tried to score. They said the ball hit the ground yet i still have seen no angle in which the ball hit the ground. Yes it was jarred up but can u clearly see if the ground caused it or if his forearm hit ground and caused ball to bounce up?There is NO way u can say that is indisputable. Dallas coulda beat seattle. Rodgers on one leg will b killed
All Forums | NFL Betting Forum
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.