The Play-

The play in question occurred when Roethlisberger threw a pass into his own lineman and the loose ball was recovered by the Chargers for a touchdown.

The Rule-

1. The officials are taught to let the play go and fix it under review if necessary

2. If the play is not 100 % definitive under review, let the call on the field stand

The Problem-

If the refs are to lean on the side of caution and allow all ‘close’ plays to continue, the review should not have to be 100% to overturn, it should be whichever side is above 50% in evidence.

First of all, I thought the replay showed definitively the pass was forward, but that’s beside the point. The announcer stated the ball appears to be moving forward but the play has to be definitive to overrule the call on the field.

Does no one else see the problem here?

For example:

1. An official may be 60% sure the ball was moving forward but let the play continue so it can be reviewed.

2. The official then may have been 60% sure the ball was moving forward under review, but as he could not be 100% confident, he has no choice but to let the call on the field stand.

Why?

Because it is assumed the officials were unbiased when calling the play originally. However, it is clear; the refs are taught to be biased on the side of letting ‘close’ plays continue. Therefore the review should be whichever side the official is more confident the play resulted in.

This rule quite possibly cost the Steelers the football game.

_Dan_