"Fact is that the dating does not date the prints directly but the unknown date of the prints depend on interpretation." - Fisherman
That is wrong. The date of the prints is known to an acceptable level of error, the same level of error that is given to all radiometrically dated strata.
As I said above, the prints were not made before these sediments were laid down, they were made afterwards (that much is obvious I hope). They also had to have been made before the surface where the prints are now recorded was buried so deep that no footprints could reach them (that also should be obvious). That gives you the relative time frame for these prints being made. The absolute time frame is given by radiometric dating methods. The relative time frame is less than the margin of error for this type of testing so therefore whatever time frame the date testing gives is accurate for the purpose of understanding these imprints.
This is simple extrapolation of available evidence. The only question of relevance for this particular find is whether they are what they appear to be i.e. human footprints.