I am sure you are right about the rule when in doubt, but this is one of the many football rules that doesn't seem to make sense, if it is so (I am not arguing for or against what happened Saturday...).
Why not let the play go on, and fix it afterwards? There have been several times that I have seen a team have a fumble recovery or a touchdown taken back by a referee blowing the play dead too early. The rule would be much better if play would be allowed to continue.
You're wrong. In this type of situation the assumption is latteral. In most other situations the assumption is forward. It has a lot to do with a) the QB trying to spot someone downfield; b) he is not pitching and is using traditional throwing motion. When A or B are satisfied, the assumption is forward pass. This would cover, for instance, a shuttle pass or jump pass (because that's not exactly an elegant throwing motion either).
In this case, neither a or b were satisfied. It was a pitch, and the QB wasn't looking downfield. So in that case, officials assume latteral, unless it appears to be forward. To make this call correctly, if you are the line judge, that's the guy you see on the sideline, you have to first determine whether this is a run or pass. It is clearly a run. BUT, at the start of the play he starts moving to the defensive side of the field, as if its pass. He quickly corrects this, but not quickly enough to have a good angle on the play.
In this situation, he has a few responsibilites: was it a pass made beyond the line of scrimmage? was it a latteral? is everyone inbounds? etc.
He was out of position for an option latteral. What he should have done is read run, and gotten in position to follow the play and watch for whether the pitch is legal (can't be forward if past line of scrimmage), and if behind the line whether it is latteral or forward. BECAUSE FUMBLES. He's also watching whether everyone stays inbounds and you can do that better when you aren't running backwards or having to turn around. If you look at the way his body turned downfield you can tel lhe was out of position, because if the play had gone to the endzone, he would have had to turn around, and you don't see as much when you do that.
In any event, he was out of position. And then he blew the call, largely as a result.
Keep in mind when a ref is reviewing in the both, an official who is out of position is going to get less deference. When the reviewing official in the booth can tell the ref on the field was out of position and didn't know what hte hell he was doing, I doubt any seasoned ref who is in the booth, is going to think very much of the call. In this case, however, it seemed pretty clear that it was a lateral because the center of the ball seemed about the same.
Applying hte correct presumption for a lateral in the backfield (the presumption is different for latteral beyond the line of scrimmage), on replay that showed the ball appeared to be in the same place, would require reversal.
While TV announcers rif on "clear and indisputable evidence," a replay official has to view that within the lense of the correct presumption. The on-field official might not have used the correct presumption. But the replay official did, and would not have known, or cared, whether the on-field official did use the correct presumption.
Here is what the replay official would have thought: is there clear video evidence that this is a backward pass, given that if it is close, in this situation, I must assume it is a latteral.