Right call, wrong call, or fix was in?

Well....by the letter of the law, it sounds like he gave an incorrect signal. An unfortunate mistake.

I guess it depends upon whether anyone on the field reacted due to the incorrect signal. Even reviewing the play in the first place was suspect, he was no where near stepping out of bounds. It seems like they used that as a doorway to do the bigger review. Just unfortunate all around.

The purpose of the fair catch rule is to prevent injury. Just like roughing the passer/kicker, illegal blocks, and targeting. When in doubt, these officials will always err on the side of safety.

This case is a little unusual, in that it isn't about the direct safety of that particular player, but of the next returner that defense sees. But it's still about safety.

The thing I find unusual, if true, is finding the wave upon review. I would think you review the initial call/question only, otherwise every play (at least every return), call or no call, should be reviewed for reasons to call the play dead.

Yes, they reviewed to see if he stepped out of bounds, he hadn't.

So the refs on the field did not interpret a fair catch signal as being made, and maybe more telling, if you look closely at the reaction on the Minnesota sideline, they had no reaction after he fielded the ball and took off.  They had a front row seat on the play and had they thought he'd signaled fair catch, their would have been an immediate reaction when he took off after the catch.

I didn’t know this was a reviewable call/non-call.

When I first saw it, it seemed like he was just waiving his left arm to balance himself. I will say though that every returner is taught at an early age to not wave their arms and never give the “stay away” signal. Players forget these things in the moment though unfortunately.

The O/U on this game was 30 which is absolutely insane.    I'm not sure I've seen one that low before.   12-10 final lol. 

That was the claim anyhow.

What I don't like about it is the fact the refs on the field didn't see it that way. 

It sure appears Minnesota didn't see it that way either.  Then after a review of whether he went out of bounds or not, someone removed from the field, with only an overhead view, not ground level, and with no feel for how the play carried out, decides to expand the review into interpreting a hand gesture in a way nobody who watched live interpreted it.

I've "heard" what the rule is, but I haven't actually seen the rule to know with any certainty how black and white, or gray it is in it's description of what does or does not constitute a fair catch signal.  There is no hand movement at all during his preceding 4-5 steps prior to fielding the ball which would usually be when the signal is given with the exception of a kick inside the 15 and a fake fair catch is employed.