So just because one cannot reach 100% certainty one should withhold judgement? Bullshit. The ref's job is to make the call. The only difference that replay make

So just because one cannot reach 100% certainty one should withhold judgement? Bullshit. The ref's job is to make the call. The only difference that replay makes is that now the ref, instead of having a tiny fraction of a second once to get all the information, he can review the replay, in slow motion (in some sports), from different angles before doing his job of making his call. It might not be 100% accurate, but it is likely to be a lot more accurate than before and this proves out in real life. Also, sometimes there are clear, non-debatable errors that need to be fixed. In both football and soccer video review has been a god-send to the games. This article is just bullshit and as a philosophy major underscores the giant problem with a lot of philosophy: it's completely useless and impractical. That isn't to say that there isn't very useful philosophy, but idiotic ideas like this give a bad name to philosophy that tries to deal with real important questions in practical terms.