The NFL centralized review of replays to ensure a consistent standard is applied when reviewing on-field decisions. And the constant standard is, or should be, that the available evidence makes it “clear and obvious” that officials were wrong in real time. Sometimes that standard applies. Sometimes, it’s not like that. When it comes to the play that gave the Colts a chance to beat the Chiefs in overtime, that wasn’t it. It was not clear and obvious that the referees made an error in determining that Colts catcher Laquon Treadwell had caught the ball, landed on one knee/leg without being touched, and fumbled. The key question was whether Treadwell had fallen on contact. Which required a frame-by-frame review to determine if he had been touched by Chiefs cornerback L’Jarius Sneed after Treadwell went through the multi-step process to make the catch. It was neither clear nor obvious that Sneed had touched Treadwell after Treadwell had completed the act of catching the ball. The fact that almost three minutes have passed between referee Craig Wrolstad announcing the ruling on the field and issuing the final verdict shows that it was neither clear nor obvious. The standard has often been summarized like this: the on-field decision should be overturned by replay only if 50 drunks in a bar had agreed that a mistake had been made. Here’s what’s clear and obvious: Whoever made the decision in New York re-officiated the play from scratch, striving to conclude that Sneed was still contacting Treadwell after Treadwell had secured possession of the ball. The league was lucky that the Colts opted not to attack the end zone after receiving an unwarranted reprieve. In the end, the league was lucky the Chiefs won the game. If they had lost, it would have been a much bigger problem. It still should be, because it exposes the presence of a flaw in the repetition machinery. The standard is “clear and obvious.” It was not “clear and obvious” that the on-field decision was incorrect. The game should be over. And here’s the next level shot. Given the persistent belief in some circles that the league and officials favor the Chiefs, was the person who made the final decision on the replay review (whoever it was) wrong to make a finding that runs counter to the narrative, if only to avoid a Monday news cycle that would have included more than a few people floating the theory that, once again, the NFL had found a way to help the Chiefs? Regardless of how it happened and why it happened and who was specifically responsible for it happening, the league in this case did not meet the standard that is supposed to apply to replay review. The ruling on the field did not represent a “clear and obvious” error. The game should have ended with the ruling that Treadwell had caught and fumbled the ball.
