Making “Replay” Work Again?

Look, I’m an old guy; when I was in high school, the course covering all of World History was taught in three days.  But my memory has not yet taken leave of my brain so that I remember the days when they used to refer to it as “Instant Replay”.  No more; now we have just plain “Replay”.

I also remember the days when I thought “Replay” would be a great boon to sports because it was going to be “instant” AND it was going to “get the call right”.  And I was of an age when I believed that nonsense that I had stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Now in the harsh reality of 2024, “Replay” needs to be completely reinvented.  Quick get Al Gore on the line; after reinventing government, this should be a piece of cake for him.  Here is the sad state of “Replay” today:

• It is anything but “Instant”.  Some replay interludes in NFL games take three or four minutes.
• Replay is a significant contributor to the fact that the final two minutes of a basketball game can take 20 minutes to transpire.
• If it supposedly “gets the call right”, how come there is rarely universal agreement that it did so?

I said that “Replay” needs reinvention.  Former Vice-President Gore is probably too busy to jump in here, so let me toss some ideas on the table to begin a discussion of how to improve “Replay”.  I want to start with a fundamental premise:

• “Replay” should be used to assure that obviously egregious errors by officials are quickly reversed.  The classic example here is Don Denkinger’s erroneous call in the 1985 World Series.  Not to pick on Denkinger, if “Replay” had been around in 1985, few if any people would remember his name 39 years after the fact.
• In 2024 replay is used to adjudicate disputes where it takes frame-by-frame video analysis to reach a conclusion – – if in fact there is a conclusion to be drawn from the “video evidence”.
• In basketball, it is used to add tenths of seconds to the game clock in the final two minutes ignoring the fact that there have been at least 50 previous incidences of incorrect clock stoppages earlier in the game.

We have reached a point with “Replay” where we need to make a choice.  Either we limit the number of replay intrusions, or we let any and all officials’ decisions be subject to review.  Why is adding two-tenths of a second to the game clock more important in the final 2 minutes than it was on an out-of-bounds call in the first half with 12 minutes on the clock?  If that level of accuracy is demanded, then do it each and every time it could possibly come into question.

And that – – obviously – – would make sporting events useless as TV programming.  College basketball games would take forever; every football game would require viewers to be ready for a binge-watching commitment of time.  So, the idea of having every call subject to review will never happen because it is the TV appeal of basketball and football that pays the freight.  Unless …

• Just a thought, but suppose any official’s call can be challenged at any point in the game BUT the penalty for an incorrect challenge was really significant.
• If head coach Joe Flabeetz throws out his challenge flag today and the call is upheld, all he suffers is a moment of humiliation and the loss of one challenge in the game.  Big deal …
• Suppose the stakes were significantly higher.  If Flabeetz’ team has the ball and he challenges incorrectly, the ball goes over to the opponents at the 50 yardline.  If Flabeetz’ team is defense and he challenges incorrectly, the opponent gets the ball first and goal at the 1 yardline.

I think there would be many fewer challenges under such a regimen but there would still be the ability to correct the “Denkingerisms” in the sport.

Here is another dimension for “Replay Reinvention”.  We need to begin to pay homage to the previous label of “Instant Replay”; there need to be time limits on replay reviews. Here is a start to thinking about this dimension and how to revise it:

• Officials in the game should not do the reviews; they need to be done by a reviewer hired by the league who is in a “studio” with access to all the recordings of the play in question.
• A football review need not require the referee to jog to the sidelines to look at a small monitor in less than ideal light conditions to make a decision.  An official in a “studio” should be able to make the decision in 30-45 seconds and tell the referee what the “correct call” should be.
• A basketball review involving a timing change should take no more than 15 seconds.
• A basketball review to see if a toe was on the three-point line or if a ball out-of-bounds tipped finger of a player who was reaching for it should take no more than 30 seconds.

Sports is entertainment; that is why sponsors pay the big bucks to networks who in turn pay big bucks to leagues and conferences to bring that entertainment product to TV.  Watching officials look at monitors courtside or on a field is not entertainment and is starting to take a lot of excitement/emotion out of the game and that is precisely what sponsors do not want to happen.

The trend is definitely in the direction of more replays with more time devoted to trying to “get it right”.  That sounds great until you realize that “getting it right” demands that everyone agrees with the replay outcome.  Since that objective will only be met about 50% of the time, that means loads of time will be frivolously spent seeking something that cannot be achieved.  I should not have to explain how or why that is NOT entertaining.

Finally, I am not the only one thinking along these lines; let me offer these closing words from Joe Torre:

“We’ve got to decide, how much replay do we want? Because if you start doing it from the first inning to the ninth inning, you may have to time the game with a calendar.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………