I know I'm weighing in late, but I thought that overturned call on the 2-point conversion was interesting. From the camera angle, yeah, it looks like maybe his foot was in. But it was a tough call, at least on my screen his toe was in the fuzzy pixels between white and green. And the camera angle wasn't perfect. But let's say that according to the TV, he was in bounds.
Now realize that there was one official who had positioned himself absolutely perfectly to make the call. I would actually argue that in that situation, he's the more reliable call (because the camera angle wasn't perfect, and it was so close). If that guy had his eyes on the line, I'd trust him 100% of the time.
So the interesting thing here is that the CFL decided to go with what it looks like on TV. It's almost as if that's what matters now. Is he in bounds on a TV screen? Well, that's what all the fans see, so better call it that way. Don't worry about what the the ref saw.
I don't even know if that's wrong or not, it's just interesting.
|