>
>>the same reason dedicated fans are outraged. You see a
>catch
>>but the refs tell you it isn't a catch.
>
>casual fans don't get outraged and dedicated fans are
>scratching their heads. this is a worse result.
>
>>Just a bad look because it's the most visible game of the
>>year. That's all.
>
>Again, I think this is a worse look. You change the rules in
>the offseason, that's how it always is.
>
>>You don't think the context matters, and I do. That's fine.
>
>But there have been plenty of shitty rules that needed
>changing or clarification in the past. You don't do that for
>one game, you wait till the offseason. It took them like 10+
>years to change the tuck rule.
>
>

A lot of your point is agree-to-disagree stuff, so I'll address one point that I think is still up for debate. You think reality is a worse look than if the NFL had officiated the SB the same way they did the rest of the season. By a pure rules perspective, sure. Any inconsistency in rule enforcement is a bad look. But this is a very controversial rule for which context cannot be ignored. Judging by the number of people upset vs satisfied, I'd assert that there are many more people pleased with the reality result vs if they had used consistent enforcement. You have two groups. One group, the one currently displeased, is, from what I can tell, a small amount of people on various social media. The other group is the casual, oblivious fanbase, plus in-the-know fans who know the enforcement was inconsistent, but are satisfied because they feel the refs "got it right." By the numbers, the way it turned out is a better look IMO because the latter group far outnumbers the former.

So by the rules, sure, you're right. But based on what most viewers qualitatively perceive to be a catch, it's a far better look and the NFL completely got it right.

So I guess we could debate what constitutes a "worse look"...
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg