Replay review, in all sports but especially football, is beset by problems. No one denies this. Regardless of the sport, our various professional leagues and collegiate conferences can’t seem to agree on what the rules are; what constitutes a given play or act; and how to arrive at consistent interpretations of often vague and contradictory rulebooks.
That’s merely a short list of replay’s problems. We could spend plenty of time extending that list and unpacking it. We won’t, but you get the idea.
Yet, with all of that having been acknowledged, and with the Miami-Duke debacle freshly seared into our minds, we do need to stop for a moment and look at the bigger picture. As flawed as replay in fact is, it’s still FAR better than no replay at all.
Just consider the Michigan-Minnesota ending.
*
Minnesota was awarded a touchdown in the final 20 seconds, which — in 1990 — would have meant a near-certain victory over Michigan in the battle for the Little Brown Jug. This, however, is not 1990. It’s the age of replay, and for all the calls over the weekend which were either clearly missed (Miami-Duke) or created passionate disputes (the Stanford-Washington State fumble and which team should have gained possession), the Michigan-Minnesota call was a call which clearly:
A) got corrected by the replay process;
B) directly affected the outcome of the game.
This is what replay was created for. This is an example of replay serving its exact purpose and mission.
Digest that point. Then stop and consider just how many games have been given a proper outcome due to the mere existence of replay.
The exact number is elusive, because some replay calls will surely fall in a nebulous in-between category subject to interpretation. This does not even include the realm of 50-50 calls in which competing views on a sight call (as opposed to a rule interpretation) both retain legitimacy.
A lot of games have been given their proper outcome due to replay, because this is the TENTH (yes, tenth!) season with this marvelous tool, flawed though it is in the present moment.
*
In the eyes of many college football observers, the game which brought instant replay to college football — the instance which made it too unpalatable for the sport to resist modernization any longer — was the 2003 Florida State-Florida game, now known as The Swindle In The Swamp.
A series of errant fumble-possession calls, not just one, significantly influenced a game’s outcome. The drumbeat for replay became too intense in the next few seasons, and in 2006, the sport had enough money, enough of an infrastructure, and enough political will to implement replay.
In this, the tenth season of replay, we can find stacks of missed calls. For every missed call, though, more calls have been properly corrected.
This doesn’t mean we should overlook the flaws in the process — in the hyperlink above, in the third paragraph of the piece, I made the recommendation that college football needs to adopt the command-center replay system seen in Major League Baseball and the NHL (and to an extent in the NBA). There’s no doubt that replay needs to be improved, streamlined, channeled through the conference offices, and given a 90-second cap except for certain circumstances (Miami-Duke being one of them).
However, none of these urgent recommendations can wipe away or diminish the fact — and it is a fact — that replay has justly resolved thousands of plays in nine and a half seasons, properly resetting game situations and, in many of them, altering the outcome in favor of the team which deserved to win based on the actual events of plays (in conjunction with existing rules). Michigan-Minnesota is a foremost example of this.
It is natural for us to remember the plays which aren’t properly overturned or corrected. Those stick in the memory, because injustices are imprinted in the mind’s eye in ways that correct calls aren’t. We react when something outrageous occurs; we calm down and forget (more of) the incident when it is dealt with the right way.
*
Dislike the way in which replay is executed — you should. I do, too.
Don’t throw the baby — or the Little Brown Jug — out with the bath water.
Replay does save games. Michigan and its fans could tell you as much today. Keep that in mind before wanting to scrap or reduce the scope of replay.
We need fewer instances of poor judgment and execution by replay officials. We don’t need fewer instances in which replay can be used to correct improper on-field rulings.
