Re: Considering Every TD is Automatically Reviewed, Should Refs Award TD on close pla
I actually think there is some space in the rules for a "benefit of the doubt and let replay sort it out" call in football.
But the only place I would allow this is where reconstruction after an overtun on review would be made more difficult or potentially impossible by not making the benefit of the doubt call.
To be more concrete, even if an official thinks a runner is down by contact, or that a fumble has not occurred, the better course if it is close is to hold the whistle and let it play out, even though that has consequences -- for example, letting the clock run when it should stop in a late and close game because you let the play go forward intstead of immediately ruling it a fumble.
In this circumstance, if you blow the whistle and stop action (e.g., have the running back toss the ball back to you when it's actually still a live ball), you get very difficult reconstruction scenarios. Same with fumble/non-fumble, and I think refs are actually trained in those circumstances to let it play out, see what happens, and let replay do its job if you got the call wrong.
But I don't think the TD/no-TD call is a tough reconstruction, so I would be very opposed to any rule that tells refs not to try to make the absolute best call they can on the field. I agree that it's a discrepancy that the rule does not provide for booth review of very close plays that might be touchdowns that are called non-touchdowns, but I think telling refs to make calls they don't believe is far worse than that inequity -- coaches still can use challenges on those plays except in the end of the half and game.
