Sports on USA TODAY The people in charge on Park Avenue, who have the authority to overrule decisions made on the field at any stadium, occasionally give into the temptation to replay review to take another look at a play. It is possible to disregard the purportedly applicable criterion.
Only when there is unmistakable proof that the decision was incorrect may it be reversed. Previously referred to informally as 50 drunks at a bar would agree that it was a horrible call, the bar was previously known officially as incontestable visual evidence.
It’s reasonable to question if the league office used the right standard when finding that the decision on the field of an interception by L.A. cornerback Asante Samuel Jr. was incorrect in relation to one of the most crucial plays of the Week Two game between the Chargers and the Chiefs.
This play was enormous. Chargers lead by ten points. The Kansas City 30 would have been the location of the ball. The host team’s supporters may have left early if the away team had increased its lead to 17.
After the game, NFL Senior Vice President of Officiating Walt Anderson said, “What we saw was that the ball did hit the ground and that he had not secured and kept control of the ball after it struck the ground.” The ball moved after it landed, and the ground ultimately assisted him in resecuring it.
Anderson continued, “He did not maintain control of the ball as he fell and it touched the ground.”
But is it obviously incorrect that Samuel decided to take control of the ball before it touched the ground? That query went unanswered. That query was left unanswered.
There was only one question that needed to be raised and answered. What unmistakable proof exists that the decision made on the field was incorrect?
At other words, would 50 inebriated people in a pub who were watching DirecTV without buffering say it wasn’t an interception? In my opinion, they wouldn’t. The result should have been interception under the very high bar for replay review even if the decision had been incompletion had the rules demanded no respect to the decision reached on the field.
Here is another guideline for determining whether the information is convincing and evident enough to overturn the court’s decision. During Friday’s PFT Live, as Peter King and I were discussing the subject, I noticed myself stooping toward the display beneath my camera to obtain a better view of the crucial scenes in the play.
I had the idea at that point. Can it possibly be plain that the ruling on the field was incorrect if you have to stoop down to see the play and judge whether the ruling was correct?