This is something I really don't understand. They looked at that play for a long time. They undoubtedly concluded that his forward progress was much closer to the goal line than the original mark. They, apparently, just couldn't quite convince themselves that he actually made it to the goal line, Fair enough, I guess. They trotted right out there and left the ball where it had been erroneously spotted almost a full yard from the goal line. That play shouldn't have "stood" even if they didn't give us the TD. They should have moved it up to just short of the goal line. That would have made the next couple of plays less anxiety inducing.
I seriously don't get that. "Stands" should mean one thing and one thing only: we can't confirm any difference from the original call. Here, based on the length of the review, the call should have been reversed and the ball moved much closer to the goal line. This sort of thing happens regularly. One could even apply the same logic on the Etienne run where we weren't awarded a first down. They looked at it a long time and certainly concluded that the original spot was wrong. They should have moved the ball closer to the yard to gain even if they didn't award us the first down.
Am I wrong?
I seriously don't get that. "Stands" should mean one thing and one thing only: we can't confirm any difference from the original call. Here, based on the length of the review, the call should have been reversed and the ball moved much closer to the goal line. This sort of thing happens regularly. One could even apply the same logic on the Etienne run where we weren't awarded a first down. They looked at it a long time and certainly concluded that the original spot was wrong. They should have moved the ball closer to the yard to gain even if they didn't award us the first down.
Am I wrong?
