Instant replay not a panacea
Posted: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:21 PM
Allow me to share a moment in the life of instant replay: Stanford hosts Notre Dame last November. It’s the third quarter and Notre Dame throws a pass on which the receiver makes a diving fingertip catch, curling his hands just underneath the ball at the moment of impact with the ground. The game officials immediately signal touchdown. There is little objection from Stanford. Next comes a replay that is shown on the stadium scoreboard and most agree it is a touchdown.
But then the dreaded moment that too often brings college football games to a grinding halt struck. The referee was buzzed from above and the play was subject to booth review.
In college football an observer -- hired by the home team’s conference -- has sole authority to stop play for the review of an on-field call. Although there is some headset communication with the referee, the final call is almost always made by the booth observer.
After several minutes at Stanford, the decision was rendered: incomplete pass, call overturned. Now, I watched the play in person and have watched the video replay at least 50 times. Every time I have watched the play it is a touchdown. Every time everyone I know has watched the play it is a touchdown. The Pac-10 admitted in the days following the game that the play was a touchdown, sending a letter of apology to Notre Dame.
Somehow, for a reason known only to him, the booth observer saw the play differently.
What does this mean for baseball? It means instant replay is not a panacea.
As long as humans interact and control the technology there is room for the kind of error made in the Stanford – Notre Dame game. I spend a fair bit of time around tennis and that sport makes the ideal use of instant replay technology. It’s clean, quick and definite -- the ball is in or out. There is a margin of error that players must accept but they do so knowing that arguing with a machine is useless.
That doesn’t exist in football and won’t in baseball. Humans will have to judge what they see on replay and sometimes a Stanford-Notre Dame like decision will result.
Then you enter the area of what is and is not reviewable. Boundary calls on home runs make sense but then why not fair and foul balls in the outfield? Aren’t those also boundary calls with clear results when replay is used?
Andy Van Slyke was on the HBO show “Costas Now” last week and he was asked about instant replay. He is against the concept. Note that Van Slyke played for the 1985 Cardinals – a team victimized by one of the worst calls in baseball history, a missed play at first base. Also note that the 1985 Cardinals play would NOT be subject to review under the proposed system being considered by MLB.
So if instant replay won’t be used to overturn an egregious mistake in judgment on the bases, will it truly be used to its best effect?
If replay is introduced to correct home run calls, how long before the demand swells for its use on all plays?
Final point is this is not a rant against technology. I love instant replay in tennis and hockey. I hate the IMPLEMENTATION of replay in college football. The system in college is horrid and should be immediately changed. I am happy professional sports has veered towards getting the call right point is that I sense an overreaction to a few missed calls. Ask the NFL about the side effects of replay: officials change the way they call games (the NFL quietly admits they tell officials to be slow in whistling a play dead on contact with the ground. A fumble can easily be reversed via replay: a turnover cannot be created by replay), the system is only as good as available cameras (not all major league baseball games are televised and most that are have a varying number of cameras) and humans will still make the call, for better or worse.
FIVE MORE SWINGS:
1. ARIZONA admitted its bullpen weakness by acquiring Jon Rauch. Good deal for the Diamondbacks in the recent aftermath of a disastrous game with the Dodgers.
2. HOUSTON stunned many with the trade for Randy Wolf. It cost the Astros, and saved the Padres – Houston will be paying about $3.5 million for around 12 starts and the Astros are a team with little chance of making the postseason. If the Astros intend on keeping Wolf -- and general manager Ed Wade has a great read on Wolf from their days together in Philadelphia -- and they pursue another starter in free agency, perhaps this makes sense. But at first glance, it’s hard to figure from the Astros’ perspective.
3. ATLANTA may have had its decision on dealing Mark Teixeira made Wednesday night when Chipper Jones and Tim Hudson both left a game with injuries. Hard to see the Braves catching three teams in the NL East but any time lost for either Jones or Hudson eliminates any hope of taking the division.
4. RELIEVERS look to be the hottest commodity in the final week leading up to the trading deadline. Why? Because their collective performance is so mercurial, their contracts tend to be short. Less financial commitment equates to a more desirable player. And the way managers play every game of the season as if it were Game 7 of the World Series the bullpens of many teams are burned out by the All-Star Game. Thus teams look for fresh arms, particularly from losing teams who likely haven’t pushed those arms to exhaustion and for whom the adrenaline of a pennant race can be productive.
5. WATCH how the Francisco Liriano saga plays out in Minnesota. I saw Liriano’s last big-league start and he was nowhere near major-league ready. He was overweight and suffered from poor mechanics. But by having his agent cry foul over Liriano’s time in Triple-A, the pitcher may jeopardize his Twins career.
Minnesota has a history of not tolerating players who don’t “join the program.” Ask Matt Garza, traded to Tampa Bay after a battle with the Triple-A staff. If Liriano rebounds, he can have a great career. But he would be wise to note how many pitchers have thrived under the care of Tom Kelly and Ron Gardenhire in Minnesota (ask Joe Nathan).
