In the legal system there are various standards

• "Preponderence of the evidence" means more likely than not
• "Clear and convincing evidence" means "substantially" more likely than not
• "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is near 100% percent certainty and the highest standard, such that no other plausible conclusion is possible

The replay system operates on the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria....or maybe even a higher standard with "irrefutable evidence".  Part of that is OK, since the evidence should be more available.  But what happens when (as is the case here) a ref can look at a play on video and have a near (but not absolute) certainty that the initial call was wrong.  Do we accept more likely than not getting the call wrong...based on what the original call was.

I get defaulting to the initial call when there isn't any evidence pointing one way or another...but maybe the standard should be more "preponderence of the evidence" or "clear and convincing" rather than "irrefutable" or "beyond a reasonable doubt"