The Otherside of Instant Replay

Instant replay has become a major issue for several sports. Either you have it and it works great, or leagues are dragging their feet to the dismay of most fans. What most people think about when they think of instant replay are games like the now infamous France vs. Ireland game with Theirry Henry's blatant handball or the Yankees/Angels ALCS game with umpire Tim McClelland making two awful calls against the Angels. What people don't see, however, is the otherside of the argument. Many who argue against instant replay say that it will slow games down. These argument are largely ignored because its implementation in the NFL has been a huge success. Baseball which has been one of the most resistant has instituted replay for homerun calls and it doesn't seem to affect the flow at all. Hockey has had replay for years and no one complains. Friday night, however, I finally saw the argument.

On Friday, William and Mary took on Villanova in the football Division 1AA semi-final game. I caught the game midway through the third quarter. In that one and one half quarter, four plays were reviewed. I have to say, it really slowed the game down. I have always supported instant replay in pretty much all sports, but I also recognize that replay run amok can be a bad thing. The problem on Friday was the specific system used. There were no coach challenges, rather every play was subject to review. I recognize the importance of making sure the right call is made every play, but there has got to be a limit. You cannot replay every close play just to be sure. Of those four plays that were reviewed, only one was a close call that really warranted a review. In fact, that was the only play that was overturned. The other three seemed pretty clear cut and I felt replay was unnecessary. If replay were limited to coach challenges as we see most often used in football, I think only the one overturned play would have been challenged by the coaches.

What this shows us is why soccer and baseball have refused instant replay. Part of soccer's international appeal is the constant flow. To stop that for replays would really hurt the game. The length of baseball games is already becoming an issue for fans. Extending the game further would do more harm than good. While I have a new appreciation for these arguments, I still believe that, like Friday's game, a form of limited replay would not hurt. The NFL and the NHL have shown us that limited reviews help officials make correct calls on big plays without really stopping the game. Also, how long do you think a review of Henry's handball or McClelland's calls would have taken? How long did it take for you to see the wrong call was made? A referre could make the correct call in a matter of seconds. The fact is that you can add more officials to soccer games or put better umpires in important games, but they are human and will still make mistakes. Making a scapegoat out of Henry as FIFA is attempting to do is not the answer. Replay is. Unlimited replay will slow down a game, but limited replay will help officials make correct calls which is what's ultimately important.