Upon Further Review - What I Don't Understand About Instant Replay
| 7
|
Instant replay was supposed to eliminate human error from deciding NFL games. The problem, from Mike Renfro's non-catch for the Oilers in the 1979 AFC Championship game to Vinny Testaverde's TD sneak against the Seahawks in 1998, was that referee error was costing coaches, players, and franchises games & championships.
The answer - instant replay.
It does slow down the game and it has taken a while to tweak the system to one that seems to work, but overall coaches, players and fans seem to favor using superior technology to get the calls correct.
There is, however, one glaring problem left with the instant replay system: what can and cannot be reviewed. You can review whether a receiver's feet were in-bounds, but not whether he was interfered with while making the catch. You can review if the ball crossed the goalline, but not if the offense used illegal motion to get it there. You can review whether a ball was fumbled, but not if the player's face mask was pulled to cause it.
I do not understand why. As football fans, we can all tell from replays whether or not there was actually pass interference or holding. Why can't those calls be challenged just like possession, fumbles and yardage spots? Why can't judgment calls be reviewed just like everything else?
I think the problem is that word - judgment. You can't review a 'judgment' call. Well, there are not really any 'judgment' calls, are there? The judgment is whether to throw the flag, but the play itself either broke or did not break a rule. There is a definition of pass interference - it is the judgment of the official about whether to call it, but there is not judgment about whether the rule was broken.
Here is hoping that yesterday's Browns/Ravens game will be the tipping point for instant replay change. Phil Dawson's kick to send the Browns into overtime yesterday was nearly not allowed because the play was not eligible for review. Why? Why can't everything be reviewed?
The main concern, I believe, is the timing of the game. We don't want every single play reviewed, right? Right. Here is the solution: keep the current system of challenges and timeouts. Keep the red flags. All the NFL, and even college football, needs to do is extend what can be challenged to EVERYTHING. Coaches - you can challenge anything you want. You only get two (three if you get both of those correct), so use them wisely.
Why wouldn't that work? The call that kills me in NFL football is pass interference. It can be a 50-yard penalty, but it cannot be challenged? Why can't a coach ask to have that play looked at one more time? We can all tell from our television replay whether or not there was actually interference. Review it! It cannot be easy for an official who is sprinting to keep up with a receiver and cornerback as they race toward the endzone and determine whether or not there has been any pass interference. Solution: use replay.
Holding is another call that ought to be replayed. How many touchdowns are called back by phantom holding calls? Solution: use replay.
Seven men on the line of scrimmage? Solution: use replay.
Coaches are not stupid - they are not going to risk timeouts on stupid things like a 1st & 10 holding call. But they will risk them to put a touchdown back on the board or prevent a 50-yard phony pass interference call or go to overtime with a field goal that was incorrectly ruled to be no good.
Upon further review, it is time to expand instant replay's ability to look at every single thing that happens on the football field.
That's not to say they didn't correctly call it...there was no conclusive way to see who recovered the ball, but for the official to give us a bold-faced lie was utterly ridiculous. and I quote "It was not a fumble" - yes it was...
Why not "While the player did fumble to ball, we have no idea who recovered it, so...Patriots Ball!"