quote:
I do not care about the rule. I knew the rule beforehand. I want it explained how he had evidence to overturn the call on the field. Only way you get 100% confirmation on anything I seen is all people favoring one team. Sometimes we try to get too perfect with review. If it is not obvious it stands. Neutral parties should not even be able to dispute the evidence.

People here don’t like the answer, but the irrefutable evidence is over most people’s head. But, did have clarification on this call Monday.

With respect to this play, listen for the WHISTLE. That is when the ball is ruled dead. That is when the recovery was determined (he was on the ground). So, if the ball is touched by Latu before that, it’s irrefutable evidence ball was touched BEFORE possession was determined on the field.

Specifically, this happened:
1) On the field, it was ruled that Brooks had established possession of the ball at 1:17 seconds (end of play).

2) Anything before that is irrelevant b/c replay would need CLEAR evidence. Replay could not find it. There is a still image here with 2 hands on ball by brooks but replay could not find irrefutable evidence that ball was secured here—it was batted away and remember the ruling on field was it was not secure yet.

3) Did latu touch the ball before 1:17? Yes, which is why they reset the clock to 1:20 left in half.

The only question that replay had to really answer was if the ball was touched by an out of bounds Latu before 1:17. And it was irrefutable.

This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 8:54 pm