Blandino on the no catch call

[Fox007]

I hope....karma...is real...and comes around on Mr Fixarino there...

Sadly I don't believe in that poo or god or all that but if it's true...that's one that deserves it...but hell the fact that poo like that keeps happening is further proof to the contrary...assholes and bitch ass motherfugers always get away with poo and good guys finish last each and every time...HGH Manning throwing his fugin wife under the bus...Clips of him yelling at teammates and poo...narrative man....people are what the narrative is and the TV will show you what they want and you'll get exactly what they want.

 

[mc52beast]

Those idiots who looked at the replay must have special sets of eyes, because every single person who I have heard comment on this has said IT WAS A CATCH.

This screwup by the refs basically cost us 7 points, and it allowed the Broncos to play with a lead.

[Maverick]

Bullshit 

[LinvilleGorge]

I'd have more respect for the NFL if they'd man up to their mistakes more often.  Refs are human, they make mistakes.  They always have and they always will.  It's part of the game.  The NFL lacks credibility when they constantly deny, deny, deny blatantly poor calls.  Just call it what it is, a terrible fuging call that they got wrong.  Twice.

[tondi]

20 minutes ago, Darth Biscuit said:

Agree 100%, it was a big moment, momentum changer but it didn't cost us the game.  We were 6 points down forever and should have scored at least twice but couldn't run the ball and when we did we fumbled it.

 

It's still very irritating to have something that seemed so obvious not be reversed... of course when Mike Carey thought it would be reversed I knew it wouldn't be... 

I wish I knew what Mike Carey was doing in the stock market so I could do the opposite.  I don't remember him ever getting a call right.  Wonder why he keeps getting inflicted on the rest of us with his constantly wrong analysis?

[tondi]

You could almost argue the NFL has intentionally made the definition of a catch so fuggin murky and unclear to everyone just so they can justify any call on anything remotely resembling, or not, a catch based on how they want things to happen.  I've watched NFL football for 40 years and, until the last few years, always had a very clear understanding of what a catch was and now I've got no fuggin idea and I can only assume thats how the NFL wants it.

[unicar15]

The "catch vs no catch" issue needs to be fixed in the offseason. There is just way to much BS. If it looks like a catch just say it's a damn catch. All of this looking for millimeters of movement crap is putting too much emphasis on referees.

[KillerKat]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Dean Blandino ‏@DeanBlandino 15h15 hours ago

On CAR challenge the ball touched the ground and slid up his body. Not enough evidence to change the call on the field.

This is what I said in the Gameday thread and in another thread. Yes Cotchery had the ball in his body, but the ball did touch the ground and move while it was in his body. I can see why it was incomplete.

[unicar15]

Just now, KillerKat said:

This is what I said in the Gameday thread and in another thread. Yes Cotchery had the ball in his body, but the ball did touch the ground and move while it was in his body. I can see why it was incomplete.

The point is it's a 50/50 call and is way to complicated. There is a play probably in 75% of NFL games every week that have a crazy catch vs no catch. Just say if the guy has his hands on it and looks like hands are under the ball...it's a catch. It started out as a rule so that guys couldn't trap the ball on the ground and has become this absurd detail oriented bullshit call. Just keep the game simple. Cotch didn't trap the ball...his controlling hand was between the ball and the ground. Period. It should be a catch. 

[Thanatos]

30 minutes ago, VerticalThreat said:

Think Blandino has it backwards. There's no clear evidence that the ball did touch the ground, but there is also no clear evidence that it did not. There's literally 3 frames where you can't see the nose of the ball (because of Cotchery's arm and the way he's holding the football). So, when you can't 100% see that a call should be overturned you let the play stand. Sucks. Cotchery had another drop that was even worse, he didn't seem to be on and when a guy who's been so solid in making the easy play all season in big moments, has that sort of trouble you can see how the other guys were probably playing very tight.

...

They did let the play stand. It was called incomplete.

[VerticalThreat]

Just now, Thanatos said:

...

They did let the play stand. It was called incomplete.

Yeah, that's what I said, "So, when you can't 100% see that a call should be overturned you let the play stand. Sucks."

They couldn't tell in those 3 frames that the ball did not touch the ground without a doubt; although, based on the rest of the replay, you could presume that it didn't.  One would hope that if the call would have originally been a catch that if DEN challenged it, that it would have been reviewed with the same outcome.

 

[Thanatos]

Just now, VerticalThreat said:

Yeah, that's what I said, "So, when you can't 100% see that a call should be overturned you let the play stand. Sucks."

They couldn't tell in those 3 frames that the ball did not touch the ground without a doubt; although, based on the rest of the replay, you could presume that it didn't.  One would hope that if the call would have originally been a catch that if DEN challenged it, that it would have been reviewed with the same outcome.

 

My apologies. Missed that part.

I happen to agree with you, but most of the Huddle won't. Don't know how people don't see that the ball very likely touched the ground and was moving all over the place.

If Cotch catches it cleanly, then no ref can take it away from him.

And OT, guys, ENOUGH with the refs costing us 7 points. It wasn't the refs who let Von Miller run around him and sack the QB. It was Mike Remmers.

[g5jamz]

Look at it this way.  If it had been called complete and Kubiak had challenged, there wasn't conclusive evidence that it was incomplete.  Same thing here.  First glance I thought the nose of the ball hit and made the ball move around.  After looking at it a couple of times, I could never say with certainty that it didn't touch (at all) the ground during the bounce off the ground.  I wanted it to be complete, but I knew they'd come back with not enough evidence. 

DOH...exactly what above posters just said. 

[Dave Gettleman's Shorts]

how is Cotchery a no catch but this is?