Was Fail Mary An Even More Epic Screw-Up? (UPDATE: No.) (UPDATE 2: YES!)

Excellent point made here by longtime friend of LGM gmack.    I took the word of the ESPN analysts that the question of who caught the ball is unreviewable.   But, like gmack, having looked at the rules I don’t see the textual justification for this assertion.   Unlike the field goal that ended the Pats/Ravens game, it’s not one of the unreviewable plays listed at the end of 15(9), although that list is apparently non-exhaustive.  Has anybody cited an actual rule in defense of the proposition that the call couldn’t be overturned?

…via The Fifth Down, an article on the league’s site asserts that “[t]he rulebook also states when a simultaneous catch is ruled, you can’t review who made the catch. You can only review if it was complete or incomplete,” but the rule cited (Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5) says nothing about whether the play is reviewable.

…Ah, I think this is right.   Earlier in 15(9), there is a list of “reviewable plays” that is said to be exhaustive, and a simultaneous catch isn’t one of them.  So the play was not, in fact, reviewable.

…Via the comments, we have an answer: the NFL now claims that the play was reviewable, although only because it was a score. (Where this distinction is supposed to come from, I have no idea):

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.

So, the NFL is claiming that Elliot got the call right, or at least it’s absurdly claiming that there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the call. Whether they believe this lunacy is unclear.