1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are "official replays" doing more harm than good?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TigerVols, Mar 23, 2014.

  1. bydesign77

    bydesign77 Active Member

    Without replay, Alabama might not have lost to Auburn!
  2. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    I liked the old days when there used to be a timer telling us how long the booth was taking to make a ruling. Obviously someone in power didn't like the fans realizing it took 6-7 minutes for the officials to make up their friggin' minds, so that went away.
  3. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I may be wrong, but I thought when the NFL reinstated instant replay, part of the rule was that a determination had to be made within 90 seconds - and the clock was displayed to support this rule. They regularly go well over 90 seconds nowadays for replays that are only supposed to be overturned with incontrovertible evidence. If you can't find incontrovertible evidence within 90 seconds, then it ain't incontrovertible.
  4. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I'm all for getting it right, but when the networks have to put something in slow-mo, blow it up, and put a spot shadow around it, whatever the call, it was probably close enough to go with the officials' judgement in the first place. If we are reviewing whether it's 3rd-and-1 at the 45 or a first down in the second quarter, all that does is kill the game and get people worked up for no good reason.
  5. Morris816

    Morris816 Member

    Of course they go more than 90 seconds. They've got more commercials to squeeze in.
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    It is worth noting that the sport where replays have had the least impact on pace of play yet remain effective is tennis.
  7. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    And the difference is (at least in Grand Slam events), by showing the replays on the JumboTron, it's enhanced the experience for spectators. Witness the rhythmic clapping while waiting for the call. For fans at a football game, it's just another delay piled on all the other commercial breaks.
  8. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    and it's really killing the NFL.
  9. Sea Bass

    Sea Bass Well-Known Member

    It's also the sport with about the simplest rules possible, and virtually zero chance of the ball being obscured by anything else in the field of play.
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    That's just it. Replay is for only one call -- in or out. The more calls for which it is used, the longer the delays and the more ambivalent the results become. Belichick's desire to have it apply to holding calls -- actually, to all calls, is a well-intentioned recipe for six hour games.
  11. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily, assuming the referees are given and abide by a strict time limit for replays. Belichick isn't advocating for more reviews, he's advocating for more plays to be available for review. Coaches would still have two challenges, only they'd be able to challenge anything.

    I'm not sure I agree with his idea - somebody holds on every single play of the NFL season - but, logically, it's not a crazy proposal.
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Right. Imagine when the replay shows, as it often would, that while number 63 who got called for holding didn't, teammate number 74 did.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page