a call is bull. You do NOT need to see the ball touch the ground to have plenty enough visual evidence that it did indeed do that. Not every time — but in that case there was PLENTY of evidence he didn't secure the ball.

We all know we woulda been p'd to high heaven if that call had gone against us — & cost us the game. Luckily it wasn't that sorta call for us or for them — but it's still terrible for the game. If you're gonna use replay evidence as a tool, please give it some actual teeth.

The main issue shouldn't be whether or not there's enough video evidence to challenge a call. It should always be about whether or not the correct call was made. And that doesn't seem to me to be the main concern of the current replay system. It's alright to admit that even with replay there will be some calls that remain ambiguous enough you go with initial call, but if the call is obviously a bad one when its revisited in slow-mo or even just focused on in real-time — then by all means overturn it, regardless of what specific criterion you may or may not be able to actually see.