Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Blandino: If it's questionable, it's incomplete (let replay fix it)


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

We should probably get ready for a lot of anger this season.

League tells officials to err on the side of incomplete

“When it’s bang-bang, rule it incomplete,” Blandino told the league’s 124 game officials at an annual preseason clinic in Dallas, via Kevin Seifert of ESPN.com. “When in doubt, make it incomplete.”

Blandino’s advice to err on the side of calling a pass incomplete flows from his confidence that the ruling can be fixed via replay review, if there’s indisputable visual evidence that the player actually had the ball long enough.

f we look at it on replay and it did appear the receiver had it long enough, then we change it and move on,” Blandino said. “Don’t change how you’re officiating these plays. Bang-bang is incomplete, and the time element allows us to be consistent on these bang-bang plays.”

So maybe there’s a way to harmonize this. Maybe a true bang-bang play should be called incomplete, if the player loses the ball immediately after the second foot comes down. And maybe that handful of plays every year involving players getting two feet down (and maybe a third, e.g., #DezCaughtIt) while going to the ground but not keeping control of the ball — plays in which the expectations of players, owners, coaches, fans, and media conflict with the ruling on the field and in the replay booth — will now result in a decision that the ball was caught, with the replay standard (if applied correctly) unable to overturn the ruling.

Or maybe not.

“There are going to be four or five plays like this every year where everybody says, ‘That’s got to be a catch. It looks like a catch,'” Blandino said. “On the playground, that’s a catch. In the school yard, that’s a catch. But it’s not under our rule, because he did not have the ball long enough to be a runner before he got to the ground.”

So instead of giving the people what they want (and, in turn, setting the stage for more catches, yards, and touchdowns), the NFL will continue to defy the expectations of its stakeholders and customers. Which will set the stage for more controversy and criticism and scrutiny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem, of course, is that defaulting to "incomplete" automatically puts those they deem with insufficient proof to overturn the call at odds of being bad calls ............. again. What's that definition of insanity? Continuing to do the same thing over & over in hopes that the outcome will change. 

8 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

whatever happened to two feet down = catch? How did we evolve to this?

They changed the definition a couple of years ago to be something like: the receiver needs to become a runner (RB) after securing the ball to complete the catch. Which is a stupid way to put it. That's when all the trouble about completed catches began because a receiver can catch a ball & end up not moving from the spot where he caught it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GRWatcher said:

The big problem, of course, is that defaulting to "incomplete" automatically puts those they deem with insufficient proof to overturn the call at odds of being bad calls ............. again. What's that definition of insanity? Continuing to do the same thing over & over in hopes that the outcome will change. 

They changed the definition a couple of years ago to be something like: the receiver needs to become a runner (RB) after securing the ball to complete the catch. Which is a stupid way to put it. That's when all the trouble about completed catches began because a receiver can catch a ball & end up not moving from the spot where he caught it.

why change it though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A winning record would be nice, but I still have us winning around the 6 to 8 game mark. Realistically we should beat the Jets and Saints, that gets us to 5 wins. After that, we have to face a lot of potential play off teams and our divisional opponents. I think we’ll win 1 or 2 of those games to take us to 6 or 7 wins, perhaps 8 wins if we can spring a further surprise.  Is that enough progress for head coach and QB? I’m not sure, it will depend on performances and output. That said, it’s nice to be back in a position where we are thinking about the play offs.
    • I would tend to agree about not falling into the trap and paying a below average QB, but sometimes situations can “force” a team to pay that QB. For example, if we play ourselves into a 9-8 like record, then what options will we have in the draft? Or do we avoid the draft and trade for or sign someone in free agency?  I’m not convinced by the 2026 QB draft class. There’s some intriguing prospects but no one that really screams “draft me”. I’m not sure we’ve got anyone really that stands out as a trade candidate or free agent signing. So although we might not want to commit a big money contract to Young, him playing well and showing progress might force the team’s hand. 
    • Realistically we would be looking at no more than a mid round pick for Dowdle or Chuba. Are we really that desperate for a mid round pick? Not really. I would much prefer us utilise the two RBs in a 1-2 punch similar to how we used D-Will and Stewart. After all, Bryce is not Drew Brees. He won’t throw for 300+ yards and carry the team consistently as a passer. So having a strong running game with a 1-2 punch will be beneficial to him, and it will also be beneficial to the RBs because we can spell them and not overwork them.
×
×
  • Create New...