Was the ruling of an Asante Samuel Jr. interception clearly and obviously wrong?

Occasionally, the people pulling the strings on Park Road with the ability to upset on-field decisions in pretty much every arena become enticed to utilize replay survey as a new glance at a play. The standard that as far as anyone knows applies can be neglected.

The decision on the field can be toppled provided that unmistakable and clear proof shows that a slip-up was made. Recently referred to formally as "unquestionable visual proof," the bar has been casually portrayed as "50 lushes in a bar" would concur that it was a terrible call.

As to one of the main plays of the Week Two game between the Chargers and the Bosses, it's reasonable to find out if the association office applied the appropriate standard while confirming that the decision on the field of a capture attempt by L.A. cornerback Asante Samuel Jr. was off-base.

It was a colossal play. The Chargers drove by 10. They would have had the ball at the Kansas City 30. The street group might have gone up by 17 and sent the host group's fans home early.

Said NFL senior V.P. of directing Walt Anderson to pool columnist Joe Reedy after the game: "What we saw was that the ball hit the ground and that he had not gotten and kept up with control of the ball after it hit the ground. We saw development of the ball after it hit the ground, a then the ground wound up aiding him re-secure it."

Added Anderson: "The ball hit the ground as he was going down, and . . . he didn't keep up with control of the ball."

In any case, is it clear and clear that the choice that Samuel really got control of the ball before it hit the ground wrong? That inquiry wasn't posed. That question wasn't responded to.

That is the main inquiry that should have been posed, and that should have been replied. What there clear and clear proof that the decision on the field was off-base?

At the end of the day, could 50 lushes in a bar (watching on DirecTV, so they didn't need to stress over buffering) have said it was anything but a capture? I don't figure they would. And that intends that, regardless of whether the decision would have been inadequacy assuming the principles expected no concession to the choice made on the field, the result under the extremely exclusive expectation for replay survey ought to have been block attempt.

Here is one more guideline for evaluating whether the proof to legitimize upsetting the decision on the field is clear and self-evident. While Peter Lord and I were discussing the issue during Friday's PFT Live, I ended up inclining in the direction of the screen under my camera to get a superior gander at the crucial points in time of the play.

That is the point at which it seemed obvious me. At any point assuming you need to incline forward to watch the play and decide if the decision was right, might it at any point be "clear and self-evident" that the decision on the field was off-base?