REFEREES ARE LESS ACCURATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE REPLAY REVIEW.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Rams survived the conference title game in New Orleans, aided, it would seem, by a penalty not called.

Drew Brees' third-down pass to Tommylee Lewis fell incomplete with less than two minutes remaining in regulation, but only because Nickell Robey-Coleman committed obvious pass interference. However, the officials did not throw a flag, and the Saints were forced to settle for a field goal.

In the afterwards, defensive back Robey-Coleman noted that he was looking around in fear for a penalty flag, and the National Football League office advised Saints head coach Sean Payton that the referees missed the call.

That, of course, has provoked a lot of discussion about expanding the set of plays that are subject to challenge, or that might be subject to review by the High Priests of the Clickers late in the game.

Please, anything but additional opportunities for further review.  The games go on long enough, and a factoid that I saw someplace earlier this week noted that "only 37%" of calls that were challenged were reversed on review.

Put another way, almost four of ten calls that prompt a review are incorrect calls.  Yes, the referees' union argues that the referees are evaluated for accuracy.  All the same, I can't help but suspect that in the absence of replay review, there would be fewer controversial calls because the opportunity to make a decision and have it clarified on appeal would no longer be present.  Think of it as a corollary to the Peltzman effect.