Can we take another look at instant replay?

As the pre-season game between the Bears and 49ers wound its way through the closing minutes of the second quarter, the 49ers finally punted. It had been a high scoring game with each team scoring on their first 3 or 4 possessions. Devin Hester floated back, turned, and committed the cardinal sin for a punt returner…he fielded a ball over his head inside the 5 yard line. It was so far inside, in fact, that his momentum carried him into the end zone. No problem, he could…and should…simply take a knee and the ball on the 20. Except this is Devin Hester, the man who can go the distance at any given moment. So he took off. He bounced out of the end zone, then retreated into it, trying to elude the onrushing defenders. Some random 49 made a great tackle in the end zone…and the referees signaled touch back.

This was clearly an incorrect call. As the commentators rambled on about not being able to see if he came out or not their  various replays occasionally showed his feet the entire time. He clearly came across with both feet striking the field of play. In other words, the 49ers should have been awarded 2 points. They were not, play continued, and I left to go see Hamlet 2 (2008). Even though it was just a pre-season game between 2 teams I hope are nowhere near the playoffs, I still want to see the calls made correctly.

That is one of the problems with the way instant replay is currently set up in the NFL. The system is seriously flawed in that it is not about getting the call right. It is instead about making the teams guess correctly whether the call will be overturned. Of course, this is something they can only do if they have a challenge left. In this particular case the 49ers were out of time-outs and could not challenge the call. The incorrect result of the play therefore stood.

In the interest of clarity I will state I am firmly in favor of having instant replay in football, hockey, and baseball at the very least. I want to see the games called accurately and to me it does not matter if that correct call is made on the field or in a booth. Nor am I convinced it should be the responsibility of the teams involved to determine whether a play should be reviewed or not.

Why are the Leagues not doing everything in their power to ensure the games are called correctly? It makes no sense whatsoever for the Leagues to actively work to ensure their officials make bad calls that stand up. Why would you deliberately ensure your games have officiating errors, especially when it is easy to improve the situation? The stakes are huge. They occasionally, as Baltimore fans can attest, can send a franchise into a tailspin for years to come. Other times they determine games, playoff berths, and even careers. This goes on even though the solution is very simple.

Put a 3 man booth watching the cameras. Have them watch the network cameras, the league cameras, and any other feed they can get their hands on. Watch the game. If they see a call that does not make sense, stop the game and get the call correct. Go with the majority rules type of system. Furthermore, USE the technology. Use slow-motion, use the reverse shots, and use freeze frames.

There have been numerous times when the commentators talk about, “There isn’t enough evidence to say he fumbled” while I have been sitting in a friend’s living room looking at a Tivo freeze frame of the guy a foot off the ground with the ball laying on the ground. Really? Not enough evidence? How about telling the truth. “Staid, over-conservative guys more interested in being staid, overly conservative guys won’t allow officials to use technology to get the call correct.”

The technology is in hand and, with properly trained officials, doesn’t take long to use correctly. If it takes longer than 30 seconds to check out the various angles, do a close freeze frame, and relay your answer then the call is “good enough” but there are a lot of calls that would change. Either way, at least the audience would know we are now interested in calling the game correctly.

The timing is already there in football. After a play is run, the second the whistle is blown they can start reviewing it. By the time teams are lining up the officials on the field will know if they need more time. If not, the game continues as normal. The flow of the game has not been impacted.

Obviously this should not be done on judgment calls but there are a lot of calls over the course of a season that can seriously impact a game. The touchback from 8/21/08 is a good example. There is a tremendous difference between San Francisco scoring 2 points and Chicago free-kicking the ball to them after which the 49ers most likely have the ball around mid-field, which was the correct result, and the actuality of Chicago taking over on the 20. That is a 5 – 14 point swing depending on the results of the drives and completely changes the complexion of the game.

One drawback might be the costs. Having an additional three officials along with the equipment to make these reviews would certainly add expenses. Then again, when we are talking about billions of dollars changing hands, leagues where third string punters make 6 digit salaries, and running backs with 3.6 yards per carry are worth million dollar contracts, it seems like a pretty reasonable expense to help get more calls right.

Hey competition committee…Instant replay is a good thing, but it could be great. Let’s take a look at it again.