With just under three minutes to play in a hard-fought AFC North clash, it looked like the Baltimore Ravens had finally broken through. Tight end Isaiah Likely hauled in what appeared to be a 13-yard touchdown pass, giving the Ravens a late lead over the Pittsburgh Steelers.
M&T Bank Stadium erupted. The momentum had swung.
Or so it seemed.
Moments later, the replay booth stepped in - and everything changed.
The ruling on the field was overturned after a review. What had been called a touchdown was now ruled an incomplete pass.
The Ravens would go on to turn the ball over on downs and never score again. Pittsburgh held on for the win, and Baltimore was left wondering what might’ve been.
After the game, NFL Vice President of Instant Replay Mark Butterworth addressed the controversial decision. He broke down the league’s interpretation of the play, explaining why the call was reversed despite the initial ruling of a touchdown.
“The ruling on the field was a touchdown,” Butterworth confirmed. “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.”
That third element - the so-called “act common to the game” - is where things get murky.
When asked if a third step would qualify as such an act, Butterworth said yes - in this case, “it would be him completing the third step.” But the league’s rulebook outlines several ways a receiver can complete the catch process beyond just taking a third step.
These include extending the ball forward, tucking it away and turning upfield, or even avoiding a defender. The rule also allows for a catch to be completed if the player “maintains control of the ball long enough” to perform one of those actions.
So the question becomes: Did Likely do enough?
On the field, the officials believed he did. That’s important, because the standard for overturning a call via replay is supposed to be “clear and obvious” evidence that the ruling was incorrect. In other words, unless it’s unquestionably wrong, the call on the field should stand.
That’s where the frustration for the Ravens - and many fans - lies. Was there clear and obvious evidence that Likely didn’t complete the process of the catch?
Or was it a judgment call that could’ve gone either way? Because if it’s the latter, the ruling on the field should’ve held.
There’s a growing sense around the league that the replay system has drifted from that foundational “clear and obvious” standard. As one source with direct knowledge of how replay is supposed to be applied put it, the catch rule has become more about “counting feet” than evaluating whether a football play was actually completed. That shift in interpretation is raising eyebrows - and causing headaches.
On Sunday, it certainly did no favors for the Ravens. The call wiped a go-ahead touchdown off the board in the final minutes of a crucial divisional matchup.
It helped the Steelers escape with a win. And it left Baltimore - and its fans - with more questions than answers.
In a game decided by inches and milliseconds, the margin for error is razor thin. But when the replay system becomes less about clarity and more about parsing frame-by-frame footwork, it’s fair to ask whether the spirit of the rule is getting lost in the process.
For the Ravens, the only thing that was clear and obvious on Sunday was the sting of a missed opportunity.