[ajmc]

Watching the play live and the repeated slow motions, one inescabale fact emerged; the covering official was in exactly the perfect position to see what was happening. He was focused directly on the ball and the goal line and if he was any closer, he would have been in the way.

We all know that real time and slow motion present different perspectives, and that as you slow the motion down you reach a point (closer to a frame by frame) where you cannot determine any type of movement and slow anything down to the point there is no movement observable. In those instances, the view from real time observation seems to provide a better perspective

Other than slowing the motion down to a point where motion may have been indecipheral, and considering the position, and view and focus of the covering official, as evident in any and all the replays I would find it hard to suggest "conclusive" evidence sufficient to justify overturning the call existed.

Not that it turned out to have made any actual difference, although at the time it seemed significant, I don't think this application of instant replay advanced the technology, which was supposed to prevent obvious errors. This was more an example of a live official, in perfect position with a completely unobstructed view focusing on the exact most significant detail of a bang-bang call, making an instantaneous judgment and instantly signalling, and selling, his decision. Exactly what he is paid to do, the way he is paid to do it rather than something to be overturned based on arguable microscopic review.