Was it a catch or an interception?
Was it complete or incomplete?
How can you tell?
I don't think you can tell.
I'm talking about that controversial call by the officials in the Denver Buffalo game where an interception was ruled and an unjustified change of possession awarded the ball to the Broncos who went on to win in OT.
Evidence justifying change of possession in any football game, but especially a playoff game, ought to be clear and convincing. It ought to be unambiguous.
What's more that ambiguity ought to apply to the onfield official. If it is clear the official made an arbitrary decision on ambiguous evidence the decision should be overturned.
That official should have the best vantage point. But if the official doesn't have the best view, the ruling should be subject to judicial review.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety and to be fair to both sides, the League Office should have rendered a verdict of "incomplete".
And as a result, allowing the players to decide the outcome. Otherwise the League is rightly open to charges of bias.
Bo Nix breaking his ankle is not "poetic justice".
There is no justice poetic or otherwise in players getting hurt.
Nix played on that broken ankle. It may have been the impetus for "going for" pass interference calls. Explaining why Nix was lofting his hurls so precariously there at the end.
And Nix being out doesn't necessarily insure a Bronco blowout loss in the Championship. The Broncos lost John Elway in the 1991 Championship Game. Gary Kubiak came on.
He almost pulled it out.
The Broncos lost 10-7.
This time the Bronco back-up gets a full week of practice.
The Bills lost to the Skins that year in the Super Bowl.
