I've noticed this several times during the season but I've been thinking about it more since Cox's fumble in Wednesday's game. There's a real inequity in the policy regarding booth reviews. If a turnover situation is a close call the refs let the play keep going and leave it up to the booth to sort it out. This isn't really a ref's determination about what happened. It's a non-call. But the standard for review is the play stands unless there's clear evidence that the call was wrong. So if the "call" isn't confirmed (i.e., it just "stands"), then all it means is that there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the ref's uncertainty that led to the play continuing. In other words, they "let stand" a "call" that wasn't made, i.e., a non-call. I don't know if that was the situation with Cox's fumble, but it seemed so.

Letting the play continue has zero to do with uncertainty. If the official on the field would kill a play and be wrong in his ruling or judgement, then what you would have upon review would be an inadvertent whistle, and the down would never count and a replay of the down would occur, which would be a bad thing.

The only real inequality is the number of cameras for any given broadcast and the quality of behind the camera talent.