"Indisputable Video Evidence" is a stupid standard

[NUCat320]

On Georgia's long touchdown last night, the receiver tiptoed the sideline and almost certainly put his heel on the sideline - but the official allowed the play to continue (officials are trained to be stingy with the whistle, because you can't unwhistle that whistle) and he got his 80ish-yard TD. Upon review, it was very, very close, but nine out of ten La-Z-Boy officials would call him out at the 12. However, because the official had ruled a touchdown, and because the video did not clearly show a centimeter of cleat on white sideline, the call could not be overturned.

This is wrong. The entire reason for review is because officials are not infallible. The video, and not some presumption of innocence, should guide the call. The review system should not be designed to prevent hurt feelings.

Is there any reason *beside* a ref's feelings that we start with the assumption that the ref is right?

 

[SciCat]

On Georgia's long touchdown last night, the receiver tiptoed the sideline and almost certainly put his heel on the sideline - but the official allowed the play to continue (officials are trained to be stingy with the whistle, because you can't unwhistle that whistle) and he got his 80ish-yard TD. Upon review, it was very, very close, but nine out of ten La-Z-Boy officials would call him out at the 12. However, because the official had ruled a touchdown, and because the video did not clearly show a centimeter of cleat on white sideline, the call could not be overturned.

This is wrong. The entire reason for review is because officials are not infallible. The video, and not some presumption of innocence, should guide the call. The review system should not be designed to prevent hurt feelings.

Is there any reason *beside* a ref's feelings that we start with the assumption that the ref is right?

Because it wasn’t “Almost Certainly”. IF he stepped on the line, it was by millimeters.

 

[Hungry Jack]

They should flush video replay. It makes officiating on the field harder and stops the flow of the game, often at key junctures. We should accept that officials aren’t perfect and live with it.

 

[Seattle_Cat]

On Georgia's long touchdown last night, the receiver tiptoed the sideline and almost certainly put his heel on the sideline - but the official allowed the play to continue (officials are trained to be stingy with the whistle, because you can't unwhistle that whistle) and he got his 80ish-yard TD. Upon review, it was very, very close, but nine out of ten La-Z-Boy officials would call him out at the 12. However, because the official had ruled a touchdown, and because the video did not clearly show a centimeter of cleat on white sideline, the call could not be overturned.

This is wrong. The entire reason for review is because officials are not infallible. The video, and not some presumption of innocence, should guide the call. The review system should not be designed to prevent hurt feelings.

Is there any reason *beside* a ref's feelings that we start with the assumption that the ref is right?

I don't like Alabama and I didn't even watch the game, but I think that the rule makes sense.

 

[NUCat320]

They should flush video replay. It makes officiating on the field harder and stops the flow of the game, often at key junctures. We should accept that officials aren’t perfect and live with it.

I tend to be onboard with this approach, *especially* because the governance in place biases in favor of the onfield call.

Because it wasn’t “Almost Certainly”. IF he stepped on the line, it was by millimeters.

As a La-Z-Boy official, with no on-field call to sway you, would you have ruled him out?

There were no green-painted tire remnants to be seen, I don't think.

If the video says he's out at the ten, I think we're doing a disservice to give him a touchdown.

Going back a a few weeks, if "indisputable" were not the standard, a proper review would have given Alviti the 40 yard line and a game-clinching first down on that sneak.