instructions to only overturn a call if he has irrefutable evidence. "looks like", by definition, does not meet the level of "irrefutable."


Irrefutable is just what the definition says it is. You can get there with a still frame if the still frame shows the ball on the ground and clearly not in possession of the player. Do you have that still frame? No, you don't because there is a hand on top and a hand on bottom of the ball in your still frame. Absent that kind of evidence, you must show that the ball touched the ground while not being secured. Perhaps the slo mo video of that stadium feed shows that, I don't know. I haven't seen that video in slow mode.


My best guess is it wasn't secured and did indeed touch the ground before being secured, but best guess is not the standard for overturning a call. Irrefutable is the standard. "Best guess" and "looks like" equates to "The play on the field stands as called". All you've done here today is prove the replay ref did his job exactly as described, and that the call should have stood even if he had been given the wider angle stadium feed. Because "looks like", by the rules, equates to "The call stands." Not confirmed, not reversed, it just stands as called because the evidence wasn't irrefutable.