Reevaluating Replay Standards: The Case for Logic in the NFL
There’s an old trial story—possibly tied to Abraham Lincoln, who was a top-tier trial lawyer before, well, you know. It goes like this:
A man stood accused of biting another man’s ear off in a saloon brawl. During cross-examination, the defense attorney questioned the prosecution's star witness:
“Mr. Jones, it was dark in the saloon, wasn’t it?”
“Yes, it was.”
“And things were chaotic with all the fighting?”
“Yes, they were.”
“Mr. Jones, I put it to you that you did NOT actually see the defendant bite the man’s ear off, correct?”
“Well, yes.”
At this point, the lawyer should have stopped. But no.
“Then, Mr. Jones, why did you testify that the defendant bit the man’s ear off?”
“Because I saw him spit it out.”
This story is usually used to [perfectly] illustrate the litigation canon of never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Today, we think it stands an almost equally as perfect illustration of the absurdity of the NCAA and NFL’s replay review process.
How absurd? Let’s just say that in the NCAA and NFL if “the call on the field” missed the biting of the ear, the call would almost certainly not be overturned because the pure logic of seeing an ear on its way to the ground would not be considered “indisputable visual evidence.”
The Replay Problem: No Room for Logic
The NFL’s standard for overturning a call requires "indisputable visual evidence," meaning that unless a replay shows a mistake with absolute clarity, the original call stands—even when every fan, player, and coach watching can see the call is wrong. Replay officials, bound by this rigid requirement, are effectively barred from using logic, experience, or common sense to interpret the game.
Apply this standard to our saloon brawl and the replay official would have no choice but to say some variation of, “Yes, the ear was spat out. Yes, the defendant was right there, but the referee didn’t see teeth meeting cartilage and didn’t call it . . . call stands.”
A Contrast with Legal Standards: Logic Meets Evidence
In the legal world, decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. Courts balance hard evidence with logical inference, recognizing that a full picture often emerges from context as much as from direct proof. Judges and juries consider both the facts presented and what those facts logically imply.
Take, for example, a burglary case. If a defendant is seen running out of a house carrying a flat-screen TV, no one needs a clear video of the break-in to reasonably infer guilt. The law allows for common-sense conclusions, connecting the dots when evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction.
The NFL’s approach, by contrast, rejects this kind of reasoning entirely. Replay officials act as though they’ve never set foot on a field, treating each play as if it exists in isolation. They demand “indisputable visual evidence” to overturn calls, ignoring what anyone with a basic understanding of the game would conclude. If a helmet obscures the view of a ball crossing the plane, it doesn’t matter that every other angle shows it likely happened. Without visual proof, the call stands.
How It Plays Out on the Field
Take a close call at the goal line. A running back dives, ball in hand, over a pile of defenders. From one angle, you can see the ball cross the plane, but from another, it’s obscured by a lineman’s helmet. Everyone knows the ball crossed, but since the helmet blocks the view, the touchdown is denied.
Or consider a receiver who drags both feet before being hit out of bounds. The replay shows one toe clearly down, the second almost certainly brushing the turf. But without conclusive proof of that second toe touching, the catch is ruled incomplete.
Or, just a few weeks ago, when the Miami Hurricanes kept their season undefeated when a touchdown ‘catch’ was ruled completed on the last play of the game against West Virginia – no ‘conclusive’ video evidence could be gleaned to overturn the call because every camera angle was blocked by a tackler. Everyone watching, however, who had ever been on a football field and/or knew anything about physics could tell in an instant that the ball was not caught. But hey, the referee could not be overruled.
Scenarios like these leave fans screaming into their couch pillows. In any other context—law, logic, or life—these would be clear decisions.
The Proposal: Bring Logic Back to the Game
Legal scholars Steve Calandrillo and Joseph Davison propose a solution: adopt a “de novo” standard for sports reviews. Under this system, replay officials would evaluate the play from scratch, giving no deference to the original call and relying on both visual evidence and logical inference. Essentially, officials would be free to use their eyes and their brains.
This approach wouldn’t slow the game down. In fact, it could speed things up by reducing endless frame-by-frame analysis. More importantly, it would result in fairer outcomes—something both fans and players deserve.
Learning from Rugby: Continuous, Logical Review
In contrast to the NFL, international rugby employs an integrated and logical approach to video review. The Television Match Official (TMO) system allows for continuous review, even as play progresses. TMOs, often former players or referees with deep understanding of the game, collaborate with on-field officials to make informed decisions. In real time. This system emphasizes the spirit of the game and applies common sense, rather than adhering strictly to visual evidence. They’d catch the ear being spit out and make the logical conclusion even if the referee was blind to it.
Conclusion: Spitting Out the Truth
The NCAA and NFL’s replay system, like the lawyer in the saloon story, get so hung up on process that it loses sight of logic. By refusing to allow officials to make reasonable inferences, the league undermines the very purpose of replay: getting the call right.
It’s time for the NFL to learn a lesson from both the legal system and Abraham Lincoln’s saloon brawl. Sometimes, the evidence is clear—even if the camera didn’t catch every frame. Sometimes, you need to acknowledge the ear on the floor.
At Hopkins Centrich, we understand the importance of evidence and logic and know how to wield them together to make the most effective case there is on behalf of our clients. Like TMO in international rugby, we know ‘the game.’