I think what he means is "let the player's talent determine the outcome of the game" as a way of saying "DON'T LET REPLAY DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF GAMES"... Which I'm sure wouldn't be the tune if that would have been called a TD, because he clearly feels extremely strongly that it wasn't.
Originally Posted by: Porforis
I get it but players talent can only take you so far. There are always going to be plays that need an officials interpretation. This was a very polarizing play and for many fans their opinion of the call depends solely on the outcome. If the play stands as called it was a good call. The call is overturned replay sucks and should not be used. The play is originally called a TD the call sucks but if replay overturns that call its good that we have replay to get the call right. It all depends on the situation. Add to that the fact that opinions would be 180 degrees different had it been a Jordy Nelson making the catch and we have nothing more than an excuse to bitch about something.
It's like the Jesse James non TD catch in the Steelers/Patriots game. Steelers fans or Patriots haters think it was the wrong call and Patriots fans think it was a great call. If its Gronk instead of James the opinions flip 180 degrees.
Obviously its not 100% split down party lines and there are some fans that would go against their team but you don't hear from those fans. Its the ones that need something to complain about or in many cases they need something to blame a loss on that really bother me.
As for the call, like I said, I'm OK with it because its not like its the only thing that didn't go the Packers way. My only comment would be that unless Byrds left ass cheek is that much bigger than his right one I don't see how landing with one cheek in bounds and the other out of bounds simultaneously is any different than landing with one foot in and one foot out. To me it looked as if he straddled the line with his left cheek in bounds and his right cheek out so it should not have been a catch but that is my interpretation of it. Obviously the refs interpreted it differently and like most subjective calls its rarely cut and dried that the call was wrong.