Story by
Key overtime ruling in Colts-Chiefs ignored the "clear and obvious" standard
- Story by
- Key overtime ruling in Colts-Chiefs ignored the "clear and obvious" standard
The NFL centralized replay review in order to ensure that a consistent standard will apply when a second look is being taken at rulings on the field. And the consistent standard is, or should be, that the available evidence makes it "clear and obvious" that the officials got it wrong in real time.
Sometimes, that standard applies. Sometimes, it doesn't.
Advertisement
When it comes to the play that gave the Colts a chance to beat the Chiefs in overtime, it didn't.
It wasn't clear and obvious that the officials made a mistake when ruling that Colts receiver Laquon Treadwell had caught the ball, landed on a knee/leg without being touched, and fumbled. The key question was whether Treadwell was down by contact. Which required a frame-by-frame review as to whether he had been touched by Chiefs cornerback L'Jarius Sneed after Treadwell satisfied the multi-step process of making the catch.
It was not clear and obvious that Sneed had touched Treadwell after Treadwell had completed the act of catching the ball. The fact that nearly three minutes passed from the announcement by referee Craig Wrolstad of the ruling on the field and the issuance of the final verdict shows that it was not clear and obvious.
The standard often has been summed up like this — the ruling on the field should be overturned by replay only if 50 drunks in a bar would have agreed that a mistake had been made.
Advertisement
Here's what is clear and obvious: Whoever made the decision in New York re-officiated the play from scratch, straining to conclude that Sneed was still contacting Treadwell after Treadwell had secured possession of the ball.
The league got lucky that the Colts opted not to attack the end zone after getting an unwarranted reprieve. Ultimately, the league got lucky that the Chiefs won the game. If they had lost, it would have been a much bigger deal.
It should still be a big deal, because it exposes the presence of a flaw in the replay machinery. The standard is "clear and obvious." It was not "clear and obvious" that the ruling on the field was incorrect. The game should have been over.
And here's the next-level take. Given the persistent belief in some circles that the league and the officials favor the Chiefs, did the person who made the final decision on replay review (whoever it was) err on the side of making 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 spouting off the theory that, yet again, the NFL had found a way to help the Chiefs?
Advertisement
Regardless of how it happened and why it happened and who specifically was responsible for it happening, the league in this instance did not honor the standard that is supposed to apply to replay review. The ruling on the field did not amount to a "clear and obvious" mistake. The game should have ended with the ruling that Treadwell had made the catch and fumbled the ball.
