well said Sir !This reversal and all the discussion in this thread is my biggest problem with replay in general - that if they have to look at the replay that long and examine it down to that level of detail, then you've already implicitly made the decision, which should be to stick with the original call. When they go to replay they shouldn't be going to the review with the intent of making a call. The call has already been made. They should be going to a review with the total burden of proof being on proving the complete opposite of the original call on the field/court, and if there's any doubt whatsoever then stick with the original call. If they go to the replay and they're say 80% sure it was the opposite of what was called, then that should not be good enough to overturn the call.
Indisputable video evidence should be just that - only to overturn the calls that were blatantly obvious to everyone that were wrong. If there's any doubt whatsoever they should stick with the original call, but replay is not implemented that way in any of the sports.