If replay can't prove a touchdown, why does the call on the field win?

• TT

  Taylor T.7h ago

  The fact that the NFL spent a billion dollars on replay technology and the official answer is still "we couldn't tell" is the funniest and saddest thing in professional sports.

  214Reply
• L

  Leo6h ago

  Look, I've been a Saints fan for 30 years and even I'm not fully comfortable with how that ended. A win is a win but "we couldn't prove he didn't score" is a weird sentence to type.

  112Reply
• I

  Iris4h ago

  Every single year we have one of these plays and every single year the league says "the system worked as designed" and every single year half the country loses its mind. Maybe the design is the problem.

  88Reply
• C

  Casey7h ago

  ties go to the runner has been the rule since before most of you were born. it exists because someone has to win the challenge and defaulting to the call on the field isn't crazy, its just how the game works

  67Reply
• JB

  Jamie B.5h ago

  If you flip the scenario and the Ravens score on a disputed sneak to beat the Saints, this thread has a completely different energy and everyone knows it. Be honest with yourselves.

  55Reply
• E

  Elena2h ago

  Hot take that I fully believe: the real problem is fourth and inches. If you want to eliminate the controversy just spot the ball more fairly in the first place and half these sneaks never happen because you never get fourth and one.

  51Reply
• M

  Morgan4h ago

  The NFL could install pylon cameras at every angle, embed sensors in the ball, and put a camera literally inside the line of scrimmage and people would still argue. Some plays are just unresolvable and we need to accept that or stop watching.

  44Reply
• R

  Reese7h ago

  @the ties go to the runner comment — okay but "ties go to the runner" was invented when the best technology you had was a guy with a Polaroid. We can do better. That's the entire point.

  43Reply
• I

  Iris1h ago

  My grandfather watched the Ice Bowl with rabbit ears on a 19-inch set and officiating controversies have ended seasons since forever. I don't say that to dismiss the complaint. I say it because the anger is real and legitimate and it doesn't get fixed by throwing tech money at it. It gets fixed by deciding, as a league, what a score IS and writing a rule clear enough that every replay official applies it the same way.

  39Reply
• Z9

  Zara 925h ago

  Former ref here, worked college ball for twelve years. The reason the call on the field wins a tie is not laziness. It's because the official on the spot has angles and depth perception that no camera on a fixed rail captures. People forget that.

  37Reply
• F

  Feli2h ago

  The chip in the ball only tells you where the ball is, not whether it broke a vertical plane defined by the front edge of the goal line while simultaneously being in possession of a player who is not down. It's harder than it sounds. I'm a mechanical engineer and the tolerances involved are genuinely difficult.

  33Reply
• M

  Morgan7h ago

  I was at that game. Ravens fans around me genuinely could not tell from the stadium angles and neither could anyone on the jumbotron. If the people IN THE BUILDING couldn't see it, what exactly is the replay system supposed to do?

  31Reply
• N_

  Noah _x4h ago

  Here's the challenge I keep seeing nobody answer: if we genuinely cannot tell whether the ball broke the plane, and a touchdown is worth six points, why is the tiebreaker "it counts" rather than "it doesn't"? Explain how you square that with the idea that a score is supposed to be a verified event.

  29Reply
• MB

  Maya B.6h ago

  the call on the field should only stand if there WAS a call on the field. what if the ref on the spot had called it incomplete? does "ties go to the defense" kick in then? the whole logic only works if you trust the original call, which is circular

  28Reply
• O

  Omar2h ago

  @mechanical engineer — okay thank you that's actually useful. So the argument is really that the geometry is unsolvable at the margin, not that we haven't tried hard enough?

  24Reply
• K

  Kofi5h ago

  I changed my mind on this over the course of the day. I started out thinking the right team won but the more I read about the actual standard — "no clear and obvious evidence he DIDN'T break the plane" — the more uncomfortable I get. That's a really low bar for overturning something that decided a game.

  22Reply
• N

  Nina6h ago

  my daughter plays high school ball and even at that level we have end zone cameras on tripods that give us a cleaner angle than what the NFL showed on that broadcast. embarrassing.

  19Reply
• A

  Avery1h ago

  Nobody in this thread has mentioned that Lamar had a whole other drive to win the game and couldn't. The replay call gave Baltimore a chance and they didn't take it. I'm not letting anyone off the hook for that interception by making the touchdown the villain of this story.

  18Reply
• TB

  Taylor B.4h ago

  okay but Lamar threw a pick. that's on Lamar. the touchdown call is a separate conversation and mixing them together is how you end up blaming the wrong thing.

  17Reply
• A

  Avery2h ago

  I've watched football my whole life and I never once thought about what "breaking the plane" actually requires until last night. Do we even train referees and replay officials on a single consistent visual standard? Because if the standard itself is fuzzy, the technology question is almost secondary.

  16Reply
• IR

  Iris R.3h ago

  I work in broadcast production, not for the NFL but for a network that does regional sports. The dirty secret is that "inconclusive" often means "we have angles but none of them are quite right because of where we positioned trucks." It's a resource and logistics problem as much as a technology problem.

  13Reply
• OT

  Omar T.5h ago

  @former ref — with respect, if human eyes on the spot were reliable we wouldn't have built a replay system at all. You're making the argument against your own point.

  11Reply
• M

  Maya3h ago

  @the pylon cameras comment — they already HAVE pylon cameras and they still couldn't tell. So your hypothetical is actually just... reality. And reality failed us last night.

  9Reply
• T_

  Theo _x6h ago

  Nope. Not even close. The technology argument is a red herring. Camera angles can't solve a pile of bodies. Physics is the problem, not funding.

  8Reply
• M_

  Marco _x1h ago

  the spotting argument is interesting but it changes the subject. we're talking about replay not spotting. different problem.

  8Reply
• N

  Noah3h ago

  someone explain to me why we have chip technology in soccer balls and rugby balls but not in an NFL football yet. genuinely asking. I will wait.

  7Reply
• N

  Nina4h ago

  lamar deserved better

  6Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about