[BostonCard]

I’m curious why you labeled the goal line stand “controversial”.  On the game thread, I thought he was in but that there wasn’t indisputable evidence to reverse the call, which I think was what happened (though the refs said that call was “upheld”, which is neither “confirmed” nor “stands”, but sounds a bit more like “confirmed” than “stands”).  In any case, going back, I do not see a clear view of the ball vis a vis the line before the ball-carriers knee was down, and the first view of the ball after the knee is down does show it short of the goal line.  As I said, I think the runner got the ball past the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but I can’t find any of the video shots that show the position of the ball, so I think the refs got this right within the guidelines for review.  The call on the field was certainly defensible (and the line judge had the best view), and not overturning the call I think was the correct video review.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’m curious why you labeled the goal line stand “controversial”.  On the game thread, I thought he was in but that there wasn’t indisputable evidence to reverse the call, which I think was what happened (though the refs said that call was “upheld”, which is neither “confirmed” nor “stands”, but sounds a bit more like “confirmed” than “stands”).  In any case, going back, I do not see a clear view of the ball vis a vis the line before the ball-carriers knee was down, and the first view of the ball after the knee is down does show it short of the goal line.  As I said, I think the runner got the ball past the goal line and Galvin pushed him back, but I can’t find any of the video shots that show the position of the ball, so I think the refs got this right within the guidelines for review.  The call on the field was certainly defensible (and the line judge had the best view), and not overturning the call I think was the correct video review.

BC