One of the problems with the league’s replay-review system is that, far too often, the “clear and obvious” standard gets forgotten when someone is looking at the visual evidence of a call that was made or not made. Recently, it seems that the bar could be getting higher.
And that could be a clue regarding the next step in the evolution of replay review.
This past weekend, there were multiple examples of plays that could have been overturned via replay review, but weren’t. Perhaps that’s happening because the league is trying to stay true to the “50 drunks in a bar” explanation of what it takes for a ruling on the field to be regarded as clearly and obviously wrong.
In the Bears-Browns game, a touchdown catch by Cleveland tight end David Njoku looked to be incomplete, because his heel came down out of bounds. (In non-toe tap situations, the NFL requires a player to get his entire foot inbounds, if his toes strike first and the feet then come down in the normal process of finishing a step.) While Njoku twisted his foot like a catcher pulling his mitt into the strike zone, the heel struck out of bounds.
It seemed clear that the heel landed on the white stripe at the back of the end zone. But if the league is nudging the bar even higher, it’s not the kind of clear-and-obvious no-brainer that compels reversal. Thus, the ruling on the field of touchdown was upheld.
In Sunday night’s Ravens-Jaguars game, Jacksonville receiver Calvin Ridley caught a pass at the back of the end zone. The ruling on the field was incomplete. The Jaguars challenged.
NBC rules analyst Terry McAulay suggested that the call should be overturned: “Clearly inbounds. I believe he gains complete control. Knee down. Touchdown.”
Alas, not a touchdown. After further review, the ruling on the field was upheld.
Assuming these two examples weren’t aberrations (and there’s a decent chance they might have been), the potential decision to move the bar higher arguably hints at a future in which the NFL uses replay review more like college football currently does. Forget about the red flags. If it looks like any reviewable call is clearly and obviously wrong, take a look and change it. Quickly.
That would be far better than the current system, where the formal replay process is supplemented by a hit-or-miss sky-judge approach that sometimes activates with alacrity to fix rulings on the field, and sometimes doesn’t. Review everything that is reviewable. Take the time to get it right.
It won’t make the games longer, especially if the league applies the “clear and obvious” standard literally and efficiently, perhaps with only real-time second looks and none of the frame-by-frame stuff that can grind a game to a halt.
If it takes a super-slow-motion examination, it’s not clear and obvious. If you have to lean forward and squint, it’s not clear and obvious. And it seems that the league might be trying to make the proper application of the “clear and obvious” standard far more clear, and far more obvious.
