Yes, can't be reasonably explained by human error.
by Cash (2019-02-04 22:23:10)

In reply to: Can’t be reasonably explained by human error?  posted by irishboy89

Read no more into that than what I said.

First, if you don't know, I live in New Orleans. I went to Saints games in the days when fans had bags on their heads. I'm no disinterested party, but I tell myself that I know how to think critically with at least some objectivity.

There were four referees with a clear line of sight to the play. Two - the field judge and the line judge on the Saints' right side - had perfect and proximate views. The back judge also had a reasonable view. Lastly, the head referee, who did not have the relevant responsibility on that play, had a direct line of sight to the contact as well. And there is good footage of his eyes turning toward the action before the hit. This is interesting because he claimed that he did not see the play. This is what we in south Louisiana like to call a dirty fargin' lie.

The side judge and the field judge were in perfect position, proximate to the play, without any interference, and did not throw a flag despite it being as uncontroversial and obvious a pass interference as one will ever see. People with minimal knowledge of the game recognized it. Everyone saw it. But the two people closest to it not wearing football gear thought it was kosher?

Human error is a part of the game, just like that rat fink chode-face Goodell said. He's right. And just like in most games, there were missed calls benefiting both sides because the game is fast and sometimes views are not ideal and they're humans. We all get that. That hit on Lewis was different.

Too many people with too ideal a view of too obvious a call not throwing a flag in that instance makes the chance of simple error explaining it preposterous. The chances of it being sincere error are an infinitesimally number. Of this I am certain, and any reasonable person should be able to come to this conclusion if you see the play enough.

I don't know what happened. I have considered the possibility that it was just raw cowardice: an unwillingness to make a call that would have been that consequential. There's a screed from a retired referee that has made the rounds asserting that it looks like some alpha dominance bullshit by the more senior field judge who intimidated the side judge into not making the call (he also states unequivocally that both should be canned). I suppose that's possible. I think it's unlikely that of the four refs with a view, none could summon the courage to make the easiest call of the day.

As for alternate explanations, I just don't know. I do know that in my line of work we tend to let Occam's Razor guide our initial thinking. But we also know that when ordinary explanations do not suffice, we must entertain the extraordinary. When you hear hooves, it's almost always a horse. But every now and then, it's a pack of zebras.