Pool report from Dontayvion Wicks TD catch missed the mark

Early in the second quarter of Thursday's opening game, the Packers faced fourth and three from the Lions' 22. And Green Bay coach Matt LaFleur did his best "big onions" impersonation of Detroit coach Dan Campbell.

Not only did the Packers go for it, but they went for the end zone. The throw from quarterback Jordan Love to receiver Dontayvion Wicks was ruled a touchdown on the field.

During the automatic replay review (it was a scoring play), the first question was whether Wicks caught the ball while his right foot was still on the ground, because his next step (with his left) was in the end zone before the next one after that (with his right) was out of bounds.

Actually, since the ruling on the field was touchdown, the question was whether clear and obvious evidence existed that he didn't have his right foot still on the ground when he caught the ball. Applying the accurate replay standard, the easy answer to the first question was, "No."

The second question was whether clear and obvious evidence existed that Wicks failed to maintain control through the process of completing the catch. Answering that one isn't quite as easy.

Watch safety Thomas Harper. As he approaches Wicks, the ball shifts. It moves from Wicks's hands to his chest. He arguably bobbles it, if only for a split second. It appears Wicks may have lost control after his first foot was down. By the time he re-established control (and he did, quickly), it was too late for Wicks to get two feet in.

The ruling on the field was confirmed fairly quickly, with referee Ron Torbert announcing the decision in the background of the discussion between Fox rules analyst Dean Blandino and Fox game analyst Tom Brady. Blandino said it appeared Wicks had control.

Brady asked the right question, "Even if the ball switches hands, Dean? Like it did from the right hand to the left hand?"

"Is he switching it within his control," Blandino said, "or does it physically come loose?"

The ball clearly moved. Wicks clearly readjusted it within his possession. But the NFL decided it wasn't clear and obvious that Wicks had lost control.

Unfortunately, it wasn't explained that way in the pool report provided after the game.

Initially, NFL V.P. of instant replay Mark Butterworth provided the predictably basic explanation: "The ruling on the field was a touchdown. We saw control with his right foot down and his left down in the end zone and then a third step out of the end zone."

Pool reporter Colton Pouncy followed with the key question: "Was there any discussion about a bobble?"

"No," Butterworth said. "These receivers are that good, he controls the ball with his hand. But with his hands or arm above his body, while pulling it down, by rule, he can actually pull the ball into his body as he completes the process of a catch."

The official rule isn't quite that specific. The three-step catch process requires the player to "secure control" of the ball. The notes to the rule explain that "movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control." However, the official rulebook doesn't specify what does or doesn't amount to a loss of control.

In the second quarter of the Week 7 Thursday night game between the Steelers and Bengals, receiver Ja'Marr Chase had a very slight bobble on the sideline during the final two minutes of the first half. Replay review overturned it.

Again, the standard to overturn the ruling on the field is "clear and obvious." Was it clear and obvious that Wicks failed to keep control of the ball while getting two feet down?

If/when there's a pool report (and, frankly, there should be a press conference every week in which someone from the NFL answers any and all officiating questions), questions about replay review should spring from that core question: Is it clear and obvious the ruling on the field was wrong?

That's how Butterworth should have explained it. Don't dismiss the bobble, because there was one. The better answer is that the movement of the ball didn't amount to clear and obvious evidence that Wicks had lost control.

Ultimately, this seems to be one of those moments that falls into the bucket of plays for which there will never be clear and obvious evidence to overturn the ruling on the field, whatever the ruling may have been.

Catch? It's not clear and obvious it wasn't. No catch? It's not clear and obvious it was.

Regardless, the notion that a bobble wasn't even discussed because "these receivers are that good" appears nowhere in the rulebook. Which means it should appear nowhere in the pool report explaining the ruling.