FRISCO – On a fascinating Thanksgiving week of NFL games filled with upsets, botched clock management and highlight plays in the snow, one NFL reporter missed the forest in search of a tree that wasn’t there.

The storylines in Sunday’s Philadelphia Eagles-Baltimore Ravens game were plentiful, including the continued downward spiral of Lamar Jackson, the late-season surge of Saquon Barkley and a dramatic ending. Yahoo! reporter Charles Robinson, however, cranked his neck to find another thread.

During a first-half play so innocuous that no one even remembers the details, everyone is still mind-boggled by Robinson’s reaction to CBS analyst Tony Romo’s reaction.

Romo, the former Dallas Cowboys Pro Bowl quarterback, watched a replay of a potential fumble by the Ravens and suggested that “New York” should take a closer look at a close play that could have resulted in a change-of-possession.

No biggie, right? As lead analyst, Romo is not only right to say that a play is close enough for a review, it’s also his job to do so.

But here comes Robinson, wagging a finger.

“Should Tony Romo be calling for New York to take another look at a replay?” Robinson said on his social media. “Is that his job as an analyst?” Robinson said

NFL fans came to Romo’s defense for what some websites are calling an “inappropriate comment” and piled on Robinson.

“I mean, it’s his job to discuss the game. If he sees something, why wouldn’t he discuss it? Unless you’re saying it wasn’t part of a script … then I can’t figure out why you’d question him doing his job,” one fan wrote.

“His job is to make observations about the plays on the field and questions about penalties or fumbles is part of it!” another added.

“If he felt it was a fumble, how would you recommend he talk about it? Of course he believes NY should review it if he felt it was a fumble. That is his job, to give his opinion,” said a fan.

Robinson, however, stood his ground. In a response to the responses, he essentially accused Romo of being too big for his britches.

“The way he said it wasn’t analyzing officials,” Robinson wrote. “The way he phrased it was literally calling for New York to take another look at it. That’s not analyzing officials. It’s becoming an official. Romo is not paid to be a sky judge who tells New York what to do.”

Criticizing Romo, as an analyst, for watching a play and suggesting it’s close enough to be reviewed hardly seemed like a worthy hill to die on.