To me it makes sense that we don't usually follow all the rules of a directed verdict, like they used to do in past decades, when there was a huge lack of evidence against the defendant. For example, in the past court systems, juries used to give the directed verdict as ordered by the judge. I'm not sure why they took this extra step. Afterwards, the judge dismissed the case. This would be in the case of acquittal.
In the case of a trial where there was an abundance of evidence showing a high possibility of guilt, a motion for a directed verdict would result in a unfair trial for the defendant. So they continue in the usual way.