John Corn
01-09-03, 11:43 AM
In the first report the NFL said the back judge did not throw the flag because he thought the guy was illegally downfield and not an eligible receiver.
Today they are changing thier story and saying, the back judge knew the guy was an eligible receiver, but did not see pass interference on the play.
OMG, this is even more of a joke than the first statement. The NFL is looking really bad on this one. And they know it. They are now looking into ways of changing what can and can't be reviewed at the end of a game.
I think they are probably changing thier story because pass interference is a judgement call and what can you do. It would never be subject to review.
But whether a guy was legal or not is not a judgement call. It is cut and dry and black and white and there is no reason why it shouldn'e be allowed to be reviewed.
They really screwed this one up.
I don't care so much from a standpoint of the Giants game. I am not a Giants fan. But just in terms of the future and preventing this from happening again, they need to sort this out soon.
Today they are changing thier story and saying, the back judge knew the guy was an eligible receiver, but did not see pass interference on the play.
OMG, this is even more of a joke than the first statement. The NFL is looking really bad on this one. And they know it. They are now looking into ways of changing what can and can't be reviewed at the end of a game.
I think they are probably changing thier story because pass interference is a judgement call and what can you do. It would never be subject to review.
But whether a guy was legal or not is not a judgement call. It is cut and dry and black and white and there is no reason why it shouldn'e be allowed to be reviewed.
They really screwed this one up.
I don't care so much from a standpoint of the Giants game. I am not a Giants fan. But just in terms of the future and preventing this from happening again, they need to sort this out soon.