Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Any word from Blandino...?


Recommended Posts

Regarding the "incomplete" catch that was clearly a forced fumble by Davis?  I remember watching him take three steps while tucking the ball and turning upfield.  I saw that they came out and said they got the blocked field goal call wrong in the Steelers/Packers (?) game, so I was just wondering if this play got any consideration.  That's two REVIEWED calls that have been screwed up in the past 3 games.  I have a bad feeling about the playoffs this year.  Any team could see their season go poof because of incompetent referees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the "incomplete" catch that was clearly a forced fumble by Davis?  I remember watching him take three steps while tucking the ball and turning upfield.  I saw that they came out and said they got the blocked field goal call wrong in the Steelers/Packers (?) game, so I was just wondering if this play got any consideration.  That's two REVIEWED calls that have been screwed up in the past 3 games.  I have a bad feeling about the playoffs this year.  Any team could see their season go poof because of incompetent referees.

 

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

 

Still think it was a bad call.

 

I have a fear that somewhere down the road between making the rules far more complex than needed and their "wussification" of the sport in the name of "player safety" the game I know and love will eventually be unrecognizable. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, Mike Pereira said that he would have upheld the incomplete pass too.

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

 

IIRC, Pereira was saying that because it was a bang-bang play in real time the refs had to stick with the call on the field.  It may have been bang-bang in real time, but IMO it was not during the replay and should have been overturned.  I did not understand his reasoning on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I have lost all respect for him too

 

 

Still think it was a bad call.

 

I have a fear that somewhere down the road between making the rules far more complex than needed and their "wussification" of the sport in the name of "player safety" the game I know and love will eventually be unrecognizable. :(

 

 

He probably said there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the call, right? Not enough to show the receiver had possession.

It seemed to me, and to the announcers, that there was clear possession. Luckily, it didn't hurt us.

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841349469270016

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841835773628416

 

https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/414841902630834176

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fumbled punt in the first Houston game that was overturned and the call at the goal line against the Bengals were a failure to me of the replay system. The call last week against the Chiefs, while I think it was wrong, I can understand how they stayed with the call on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fumbled punt in the first Houston game that was overturned and the call at the goal line against the Bengals were a failure to me of the replay system. The call last week against the Chiefs, while I think it was wrong, I can understand how they stayed with the call on the field.

Why have slo-mo replay if bang bang makes it stay the call first ruled on the field?

To me it wasn't even bang bang.

I know they took "football move" out of the rulebook, but where does possession even start anymore? It's getting ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have slo-mo replay if bang bang makes it stay the call first ruled on the field?

To me it wasn't even bang bang.

I know they took "football move" out of the rulebook, but where does possession even start anymore? It's getting ridiculous.

 

Where do YOU think possession should start?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do YOU think possession should start?

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.

 

The bolded is the very definition of subjectivity, as your idea of "common sense" will invariably differ from the person next to you. That's something the NFL is trying to reduce in the way games are called. It's why verbiage like "football move" was taken out of the rule book. 

 

The thing about two steps -- which would apply in this case -- is that you still have to determine definitively when the receiver established control of the football. I think he had control and took two steps, and it should have been ruled a catch and a fumble. But it wasn't ruled that way on the field, and while I think the replay showed that he established control and took two steps, I can understand the ref not seeing the replay as conclusive. To me, it's one of those plays that half the room will see one way, and the other half will see another way. 

 

Two seconds can be an eternity; applying that standard would make the play in question an incomplete pass.

 

Anyways, my point is just that one person's idea of "possession" differs from another's, and that's while the rule book is written the way it is. I think they should probably redefine "conclusive evidence," because there are situations where the right call is obvious under review, but that benchmark isn't necessarily reached. This is a perfect example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bolded is the very definition of subjectivity, as your idea of "common sense" will invariably differ from the person next to you. That's something the NFL is trying to reduce in the way games are called. It's why verbiage like "football move" was taken out of the rule book. 

 

The thing about two steps -- which would apply in this case -- is that you still have to determine definitively when the receiver established control of the football. I think he had control and took two steps, and it should have been ruled a catch and a fumble. But it wasn't ruled that way on the field, and while I think the replay showed that he established control and took two steps, I can understand the ref not seeing the replay as conclusive. To me, it's one of those plays that half the room will see one way, and the other half will see another way. 

 

Two seconds can be an eternity; applying that standard would make the play in question an incomplete pass.

 

Anyways, my point is just that one person's idea of "possession" differs from another's, and that's while the rule book is written the way it is. I think they should probably redefine "conclusive evidence," because there are situations where the right call is obvious under review, but that benchmark isn't necessarily reached. This is a perfect example.

 

I disagree with this, I believe that it would be more like 98% would see it one way and 2% would see it the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what I think, but since you asked, it should be common sense possession. If he catches the ball and is not in the process of going to the ground the player should be given a 2 second window, a football move, or 2 steps.

A 2 second window? Holy smokes that is forever and a day in the NFL. And not close to a standard the NFL would adopt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would probably be something like 80/20 here on the Colts board. Neutral poll, far closer to even.

I went around the Chiefs' boards and I'd say a huge majority of those who commented on it thought that was a catch and fumble. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. My brother in law who hates the Colts agreed it was definitely a catch and fumble.

I'm not complaining about the "close plays" that could be called either way. There is just no way that was an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Unfortunately this has happened to the Colts at least 4 times this season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went around the Chiefs' boards and I'd say a huge majority of those who commented on it thought that was a catch and fumble. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. My brother in law who hates the Colts agreed it was definitely a catch and fumble.

I'm not complaining about the "close plays" that could be called either way. There is just no way that was an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Unfortunately this has happened to the Colts at least 4 times this season.

I thought it was a fumble, but on that kind of bang bang play the pass catcher often gets the benefit of the doubt it seems. The refs are consistently inconsistent at least....

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Pereira was saying that because it was a bang-bang play in real time the refs had to stick with the call on the field.  It may have been bang-bang in real time, but IMO it was not during the replay and should have been overturned.  I did not understand his reasoning on this one.

That's why I liked JMV's response to him when he said "Then don't have replay".  That's the exact point of replay is to slow things down and catch things you might have missed when watching it live because it was bang bang.

 

I like Pereira a lot and really listen to him when he says the officials got something wrong because he will do things like this here to take the officials side from time-to-time.  So if he doesn't take their side to me that means they really did mess up. 

 

In this case I think he's just sticking up for official brother and trying to give him an out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...