I am so sick of hearing from that guy. He always seems to go against us. He applies the standards in ways that are obviously inconsistent.
1. If the call on the field goes against us, he talks about how the booth needs strong evidence to overturn it. And then proclaims there is no such evidence.
2. If the call on the field is for us, he rarely mentions the standard of booth review. He then assesses the play based on what he sees in the review.
I can’t stand hearing him talk. He is terrible at his job; he is not an expert in anything other than advocating against us.
1. If the call on the field goes against us, he talks about how the booth needs strong evidence to overturn it. And then proclaims there is no such evidence.
2. If the call on the field is for us, he rarely mentions the standard of booth review. He then assesses the play based on what he sees in the review.
I can’t stand hearing him talk. He is terrible at his job; he is not an expert in anything other than advocating against us.
