Are "official replays" doing more harm than good?

Without replay, Alabama might not have lost to Auburn!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

and it's really killing the NFL.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.