Quote:
Originally Posted by KCRC
I was not aware of this. I learn something every day (I'm a BB board lurker). This leads me to a follow up question.
The White Hat announced the ruling on the field was "down by contact" which allowed for the review. With your above statement, I think you are saying that the review could result in a determination that forward progress had stopped prior to loss of possession.
However, the announced result of the review was that "the play stands as called." Well, as called was "down by contact." To me, such an announcement means that the review official did not find indisputable video evidence to overturn "down by contact." If the review official disagreed with "down by contact" but made a forward progress ruling, wouldn't that require more of an explanation than "the play stands as called?" Or do I have too high of expectations on post-review explanations?
|
The play stands as called almost always means "We don't have enough evidence to change anything."
If they agreed he was down by contact after the review, they would say, "The ruling on the field was confirmed."
(Of course, the TD 2 plays later was also "play stands as called" when there was literally no doubt of the score).