FanNation

Bigalke said 04/16, 09:41 AM
First, we must ask ourselves, "What constitutes a major sport." Then, we should ask ourselves who would be initiating these replays. Finally, though, we should look at which major American sports DON'T have instant replay...

But before I do that, I have one MAJOR problem with your argument, GOAT... and here it is:

"Replays may take up more time, but they will decide the outcome of the game correctly every single time." EVERY single time? The reality is that there are plays which are bungled despite replay. Keyshawn Johnson catches the ball out of bounds for a touchdown? Denver gets the ball after a fumble... because the whistle blew? NO system can be perfect or correct EVERY time...


And the reality is that American sports pretty much all use instant replay in some form. Major League Baseball is going to use it starting this season... the National Hockey League, National Basketball Association, both professional and college football... even tennis has instant replay! We are arguing precedent in this circumstance...

But should there be MORE replays? No... the plays that need review are, by and by, getting reviewed. Because major sports have replay, there is no need for MORE...

Bigalke said 04/16, 08:56 PM
"In my opinion, more replays would result in better officiating."

More replays will not result in better officiating... in fact, just the opposite. If referees know that they do not have to be vigilant in their calls on the field or court or ice, realizing that the call will come from upstairs to correct injustices, then referees will have no incentive to do their job correctly...

Rules are in place to decide WHAT can be reviewed so that the gameplay remains as fluid as possible while being fair. By opening up those rules, we are further disrupting the actions on the field. People come, first and foremost, to see the players PLAY... not to watch a referee or an umpire sit with his head in a video replay screening booth...

Does instant replay make the correct call every time? Hardly!

Initiating more replays would necessitate even MORE camera angles than already cover games. It would disrupt the flow of games to the point of absurdity, with any borderline call being sent upstairs. With sporting events dragging on longer and longer already, we don't need MORE replay... we simply need the replays we have to be more effective...

Bigalke said 04/17, 09:37 AM
The problem with instant replay, in the end, is it is dependent on the camera angles available for review. The correct call can't always be made because, even with improving technology, replay simply can't always catch what it needs to to make an accurate call...

"As I mentioned before, replays could be used more often at a stoppage in play."

You say you are looking for an increase of 2-3 replays per game, & assert that they can be used more during stoppages of play. However, disputed plays don't always conveniently happen right before a stoppage in play. More often than not, the play in question has happened in the heat of battle, and the battle continues onward. Stopping the game in these instances WOULD disrupt flow...

"is more accurate than a ref or ump standing out on the field or court." Evidentiary proof, G.O.A.T.? The real issue, as I have stated, is that instant replay is dependent on the angles of the cameras & what they can capture. So, too, is a referee's call. And when the camera angles are inconclusive, then the call defers to the ref's initial judgment. Hardly an indicator of "accuracy"...

Replay is great... in small doses. Expanded replay would get old quickly.