A Television Replay Showed . . .

Is this OK to include in a story? I mean, I had access to the replay of a very critical play (it was a game-winning run) just seconds after it happened. And, the television replay showed the umpire blew the call.

I feel I owe it to readers who weren't there, didn't see the play clearly or weren't watching TV.

Thoughts?

 

I don't have a problem with including it. In fact, as a reader I've been disappointed before when I've seen a call on TV that was clearly blown and played a key role in the outcome of the game -- and then read a story with no mention of it. It sounds like people who attended the game would question whether it was a good call, so why not answer their question if you're in a position to do so?

 

If someone handed you frame-by-frame photographs that proved the call was blown, would you mention that in your story?

 

I think it's fine. It's just transparency, right?

 

Why is this a question?
I've seen it used routinely in stories for years.

 

I once covered a basketball game where one team hit a buzzer-beater to send the game to OT, where this team pulled away.

Afterwards, I'm the sole person left in the pressbox, and as I'm on my way out, the other coach asks if I want to see video of the game-tying shot. We broke it down as much as we could, and while the video was inconclusive, I did put in a follow-up story that the "video indicated the ball was still in John Doe's hand with one-tenth of a second left, but it was not clear where the ball was in the instant the clock expired."

It was damn close.

 

You might want to couch it with something like, "Television replays INDICATED . . . "

Sometimes a runner is shown to reach home plate before a tag . . . but never really touched the plate (flew over it).

 

True dat. Replays don't prove that an ump blew a call. They call be a tool, but it's still a subjective opinion.

 

Well said, Ace.

 

Why does the word "television" need to be used?
It strikes me as entry from the Dept. of Redundancy Department.

 

I, too, like hedging my bets with "indicated"

 

It's one of those terms that seems awkward without it. Let's face it, much of language is redundant.

"Replays indicated . . . " makes it sound like they ran the play over and over, even though we know they didn't. "TV replays indicated . . ." sounds a little better, if a little redundant.