NFL will explore further expansion of replay review

When the NFL first reintroduced replay review 26 years ago, it started with a limited range of reviewable plays. Over time, the list of plays that could be corrected by replay review has expanded.

Here's what typically happens. The officials make a "clear and obvious" mistake as to a play that doesn't fall within the scope of reviewable plays, internal and/or external voices realize that the play should have been within the scope of reviewable plays all along, and the rules are expanded to encompass it.

Currently, the league is exploring further expansions to replay. Via Rob Maaddi of the Associated Press, potential additions include: "crackback blocks, low blocks/clipping, blindside blocks, intentional grounding (determine a receiver's position on the field) and illegal formation on kickoffs (determine feet on the ground when the ball is touched)."

The ability to review grounding as it relates to a receiver's position on the field goes directly to the unfixable error from the Week 13 Broncos-Commanders game. The Commanders were penalized for grounding, even though the pass was thrown in the direction of a receiver who was outside the numbers. (It's an obscure exception to the rule that isn't as widely known as it should be.) Walt Anderson thereafter admitted it was a mistake, explaining that the rules don't allow replay to be used to rectify such situations.

The rulebook currently identifies the reviewable plays and the non-reviewable plays, with an explanation that anything that is not expressly reviewable cannot be reviewed. At this point, the better approach would be to identify a short list of non-reviewable plays (e.g., pass interference, holding) and to acknowledge that everything else is reviewable.

Currently, fans expect the replay process to fix mistakes. When clear mistakes happen and can't be fixed because no one thought to put that specific outcome on the list of reviewable plays, it's confusing - and it feels wrong.

With more and more plays available to be reviewed, it feels more and more confusing (and wrong) when an obvious error can't be easily remedied. So let everything be remedied, minus a few things that fall squarely within the judgment and discretion of the officials.