That is just taking the discretion from the official in the booth (review) and leaving it with the official on the field (blew the whistle). The whole idea of review is to check that discretion when it is clearly wrong.
I agree good conversation. Unfortunately this is a slippery grey area. What does getting it right look like? I think there are a lot of answers to that and many different ones of them are not necessarily wrong.
I guess I just dont like the idea of giving officials the opportunity to use their discretion more than we have too. We already give them tons of wiggle room on holding, interference and roughing penalties. I just dont agree with an instance where an official can blow the whistle, then determine he screwed up by blowing it then try to make a call based on events that happen after some players have quit playing.
The best example I can come up with is the example of fumbling the ball out of bounds. The out of bounds line is similiar to the whistle, it determines the field of play whatever happens beyond that point doesnt count just like i dont think something that happens after a whistle has blown should count (unless its a penalty). Similarly in college we dont have the push out rule. If a receiver is in the air and is pushed out they dont count the catch, because he didnt land in bounds. They dont say, "weeeellll he may have come down in bounds and maintained control if he hadnt been pushed, so we will just give it to him". No, you only get credit for what happens in between the whistles and inside the out of bounds markers.
Glad the call went our way, just not in agreement with the rule itself. This will happen to someone bigger than us on a bigger stage and a big issue will be made of it. I assume my theory will be right in the end.
