The Ravens appeared to take the lead over the Steelers with 2:47 to play, after Baltimore tight end Isaiah Likely caught a 13-yard touchdown pass.
The ruling on the field was overturned by the replay official. The Ravens eventually turned the ball over on downs, and didn’t score another point.
After the game, the NFL made V.P. of instant replay Mark Butterworth available to pool reporter Jeff Zrebiec as to several controversial calls, including the Likely no-catch.
“The ruling on the field was a touchdown,” Butterworth said. “We quickly looked at the play. The receiver controlled the ball in the air, had his right foot down, then his left foot down. The control is the first aspect of the catch. The second aspect is two feet or a body part in bounds, which he did have. Then the third step is an act common to the game and before he could get the third foot down, the ball was ripped out. Therefore, it was an incomplete pass.”
Butterworth was asked whether the third step would have constituted an “act common to the game.”
“For this play, it would be him completing the third step,” Butterworth said.
For any play, however, the third element of the catch process is satisfied by “any act comment to the game.” Taking a third step is one way to do it. Others include, per the official rules, “extend[ing] the ball forward, . . . tuck[ing] the ball away and turn[ing] upfield, or avoid[ing] or ward[ing] off an opponent).” The third element also is satisfied if the player “maintains control of the ball long enough to” perform an act common to the game.
Watch the play, and ask yourself whether Likely performed an act common to the game (other than getting a third step down) or whether he had enough time to do so.
And here’s the real question, given that the ruling on the field was that Likely had made the catch. Is it “clear and obvious” that he failed to perform an act common to the game, or that he didn’t control the ball long enough to do so?
As one source with direct knowledge of the intended application of replay review explained it to PFT, the league has gotten away from the “clear and obvious” standard. “The catch rule now has become more about counting feet than anything else,” the source said, “which isn’t good.”
On Sunday, it wasn’t good for the Ravens. (It was good for the Steelers.) It’s not good for the game, its teams, or anyone if the NFL can’t or won’t apply the “clear and obvious” standard as written.
Watch the play again. And ask yourself this question: Is it “clear and obvious” that the ruling on the field was wrong?
The only clear and obvious answer is no.
