blobbottlebob
Well-Known Member
So, after all that, where do things stand?
Either, the ref who reviewed that play could not tell that it was an interception or he did not want to reverse the call for some other reason. I refuse to believe that he could not see the truth on the tape. No one who is the head judge on an NFL field is totally incompetent. He had to see it because it was plain and clear. So, what could have motivated him not to reverse the call? The only thing I can think of is that he was afraid to upset the crowd and incite more controversy. So, by saying that the call stands - he hasn't really taken any position - he just let the refs on the field call it. Stupid if I'm right. He should have called the objective truth. If he cannot do that, he shouldn't be out there. If you cannot trust the refs to be unbiased and fair, you have undermined everything. Might as well pay them to pick the winner. Ridiculous. Honestly.
Either, the ref who reviewed that play could not tell that it was an interception or he did not want to reverse the call for some other reason. I refuse to believe that he could not see the truth on the tape. No one who is the head judge on an NFL field is totally incompetent. He had to see it because it was plain and clear. So, what could have motivated him not to reverse the call? The only thing I can think of is that he was afraid to upset the crowd and incite more controversy. So, by saying that the call stands - he hasn't really taken any position - he just let the refs on the field call it. Stupid if I'm right. He should have called the objective truth. If he cannot do that, he shouldn't be out there. If you cannot trust the refs to be unbiased and fair, you have undermined everything. Might as well pay them to pick the winner. Ridiculous. Honestly.