No, the point is the rule is the problem when it isn't possible for most crews to come to the same conclusion looking at the same evidence. They are only capable of being as accurate as their rule set and tools allow them to be.
Those are two different questions, but you are wrong on your premise anyway.
Someone needs to take a tire iron to the back of Finebaum's head.
You forgot A&M
It's ruining the game. Regardless of teams, situation, etc., I cannot stand the "Let the play go" and figure it out later mentality, as it is doubly tough to overturn a wrong call with the evidence rule. So, an auto advantage is given to the team the refs "Let score". Iowa State almost lost to UNI this year, as BOTH UNI TDs were on plays that the refs let play out, both were iffy, and both stood because there was not enough evidence to overturn. I realize this is different than what happened in the Fiesta Bowl, but the call mentality stinks. If a ref thinks it's incomplete, call it incomplete, don't let it "Play Out".
Whatever the answer, something needs to be done with this one particular type of ruling on the field and in the booth. It's bogus to let a play that is not clear to an official to continue when it takes so called indisputable visual evidence to overturn - especially when it is leading to a score. Let the officials call it like they see it, and let the booth officials do what they do.
