Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daryl Muellenberg" data-source="post: 638988" data-attributes="member: 9708">What part of obvious don't you understand? If a play is controversial (in other words there is no visual evidence to prove one way or the other) then you let the play stand as called. But if there is indisputable (obvious) evidence that a call was ruled incorrectly, what's the harm of correcting it? It's no different than the plays that can be reviewed now, if there is indisputable evidence they called it wrong they overturn it. I know some plays like pass interference are judgement calls, but if there is evidence that the judgement was incorrect why can't it be changed? For example, a receiver and db are running side by side going for a pass and the receiver falls down - the ref thinks that he fell because of contact and throws the flag. But looking at the replay there is 'obvious' evidence that the db didn't touch the receiver and he just tripped on his own, they should be able to overturn it. I agree that there are some things like holding that just can't be reviewed, but other penalties can and should be able to be reviewed.As far as the Fail Mary, if they were able to review that play it was definitely obvious to everyone that Tate pushed the defender down before he caught the pass - so that would have been offensive pass interference and there is no way you are going to say that wasn't obvious.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 205 (members: 1, guests: 204)