I'm sure we have some ex refs on here, or people with direct knowledge. When a ref makes a call, is he required to explain it? Sure, 99.99% of the time it is obvious, but when a play goes to review, does he have to explain why he called what he called? Again, 99.9% of the time it is obvious, but when we go back to the Fleming catch, it was not. It was called incomplete, so we needed indisputable evidence to overturn it. But we don't know why he called it incomplete. If he said Fleming was out of bounds, we had indisputable evidence he was not. If he said he lost control, I would disagree, but would at least understand that the evidence wasn't indisputable to overturn.