Originally Posted by SCMom
I understand that and to some extent I even agree with it.
What bothered me more was that Nantz and Simms offered nothing in the way of why it "could have" been a good hit or that it was even debatable. In their eyes the League was right and that was that and it's that fealty that bugs me.
When I watch a Sunday Night game with Michaels and Collinsworth, if they saw the same play, they would at least offer some reason why it might not have been called or offer an opinion about the call being more about adhering to rules (or erring on the side of caution). In other words, they try to see all sides of a situation and I've even heard Collinsworth say that a call was flat-out bad when he thought it was or that the officials are overreacting.
Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that he had the stones to question something and I appreciate that honesty and the courage to take an opposing stance.
But Nantz and Simms seem to be following the League protocols as if not doing so would cost them their jobs and as a result, anything they say seems as if it was said to appease the League rather than offer a real honest-to-God opinion about something. They come off as suck-ups and apologists and that just drives me crazy.