Monday, November 24, 2008

After Further Review...


I'm a big fan of sports officials using instant replay to get every call right. I don't care how long it takes, I'd rather see every ruling be perfect so that the best team always wins...uh...at least as long as the best team happens to be who I am rooting for! If not, then why do we waste time with these replay reviews anyway???

The trouble is, since the use of instant replay came into vogue as a game officiating tool we've all witnessed some cockamamie decisions rendered forth. Decisive decisions even!

Replay rules have always stated that there must be 'conclusive evidence' in order to overturn the original call on the field. Regardless, we still see refs in every game make an attempt to officiate each replay review. It seems that while many replays lack enough visual proof to pass judgement, judgement gets passed anyway - as if there is an implied obligation to draw some tangible value from the replay gadgets on hand. Hey, if you don't have enough concrete evidence then just say so!

In my opinion here is what they need to do to improve the replay system. This goes for all sports, from the NFL to Tiddlywinks:
1) Take the guy on the field out of the equation. I mean, c'mon - he's the one who probably blew the call in the first place! Have replay officials in the booth upstairs do all of the reviewing and simply pass decisions downward...kind of like the Supreme Court only not as pompous.
2) Getting the right call shouldn't be up to the coaches, shouldn't cost timeouts, and shouldn't be a strategic move. Getting the right call should simply be for the good of the game (soccer's "Law 18"). Don't let coaches call timeouts or throw challenge flags. Don't let the officials on the field have any control over it either. Instead, have the replay officials upstairs decide whether to stop play to review the tapes. And if you're going to stop my game it had better be worth it! No need to review every 3 yard run - just look for those game-changing, mission critical moments.
3) Be consistent. If there's not enough evidence, just say so and move on.
4) Postgame polygraph tests followed by firing squads: "On that play in the 3rd quarter, was that intentional pass interference or did you really just trip over a sprinkler head?" "Were you honestly trying to make that field goal? Because from here it looked more like you were aiming for the replay booth with your foot!" Ok, that might be going too far...nix that last one - for now anyway.

No comments: