Tweet
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.
The "clear and obvious" replay-review bar could be getting higher - NBC Sports
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.
The "clear and obvious" replay-review bar could be getting higher - NBC Sports
Comment