I'm talking generally here, not specifically to this game/call. All sports refereeing has inherent tension between on-the-field calls and methodical review. It's actually a pretty interesting subject and there are interesting parallels between the standards of proof in professional sports and the standards of proof in the justice system. We ultimately sacrifice accuracy in exchange for pacing in sports, particularly in regards to the 'indisputable evidence' rule to overturn calls.
We can imagine a 100% accurate game that takes days to play out as computers review footage of every player at every moment on every play. Instead, we have more limited forms of review that gives extreme deference to calls on the field for a variety of reasons, primarily pacing, but this happens at the expense of accuracy. Of course, we can move the line farther in the direction of accuracy, but this increases game length as more penalties get called that are normally missed or overlooked for not being 'flagrant' enough. One obvious example of this problem: How many referees should be in a game? The answer to that question is inherently limited by things like time and money.
I'm not sure what the most ideal system would be or should be, but if the goal is to continually move in the direction of greater accuracy then eventually you want to move towards relying entirely on computers and automated systems. In MLB, for example, you could have a computer determine balls and strikes with much greater accuracy than a human umpire could, thus removing human error. But is that what fans really want or what's best for the sport? Even a 'perfectly fair' algorithm would still be subject to possible engineering or design flaws that could lead to incorrect calls, so even it can't provide perfection.
I do think there is hidden value in the drama of human refereeing errors, it's a love/hate relationship that I think fans ultimately prefer to computerized refereeing. I'm not saying the current system is fine as it is, or that it couldn't increase accuracy fairly easily without causing time or money problems. But there is a point where you say, more accuracy is not worth it.
