Quote:
Originally posted by rulesmaven
I think to not have a replay in that circumstance would have been a much bigger problem than having one.
Five minutes, ten minutes, whatever minutes.
I also like that despite the blathering of Nantz and Packer if you watched the officials' body language during the review, I don't think there was any part of them thas was worried about "conclusive evidence" standards or whether "the kids deserved 5 more minutes" or "the longer this goes on the longer you have just let the play stand" or any of that other crap.
I'd like to think that Burr was looking at the screen with one thought. This is either a two or a three and my only job is to figure out which.
|
Disagree....the intent of video replay is to either confirm or overturn the ruling that occurred during play. The NHL has been doing this for years - and the rule of thumb is the same (extend this to NFL as well): the video MUST be conclusive in the eyes of the official to overturn the original call. That's the way it should be...otherwise, what's the point of using it?
And while I get an upset stomach doing this, I have to say that I thought the TV commentary during the review was pretty good - the longer it went on, the more obvious it became that the video was likely not conclusive enough to overturn the "3".
Afterwards, all I could think about was how incredibly impressed I was with how the crew handled it, and how much care, attention, and professionalism they displayed. Truly instructive for the rest of us.