With Instant Replay in Sports, Who’s Losing?

On Aug. 5th, the Florida Marlins beat the Philadelphia Phillies 5-4 on a ball that landed inches inside the white foul line (as was proven later when the TV networks replayed it).

Instead, it was called foul by the umpires, the inning continued and the Marlins instead ended up losing 5-4. Technology has advanced at a tremendous pace in the past twenty years, shown nowhere more than the sporting world. Swimmers are wearing skin tight, aerodynamic unitards.

Nike has let us sync our iPods with our shoes. And whether we like it or not, steroids are one heck of a science.

But when does technology impede too much on the games we love? Instant replay in sports is perhaps the most obvious example of this dilemma.

We have conceded that humans are not perfect creatures. Referees and umpires do, in fact, count as humans. These men and women dressed in black and white keep the game in order.

To be a ref in the major sporting leagues in the U.S. takes an extraordinary amount of time and skill.

In 2007, the average age of an NFL ref was 51. These guys have been to more referee clinics than most freshmen have been to algebra classes. Yet we still don’t trust them.

Instant replay is prevalent in almost every game played today. In hockey, a score is the only facet of the game reviewed. But all aspects of the goal can be reviewed, including whether the puck was deflected off a hand or a high stick.

In tennis, a “Hawk-Eye” system, which uses multiple cameras to measure trajectory and speed, determines the landing location of a ball.

Not all calls are reviewed, though, but only those specifically called for by the player. These “challenges” are similar to those in football, in that the number of contested calls is limited.

American football relies the most on video evidence. In fact, the referees are really only there to make obvious statements such as whether a field goal is good or not, and what down it is. In most college football divisions, video review is used on every play of the game.

The video ref in the booth pages a field umpire when play needs to be stopped to check the accuracy of a ruling. Though the NFL does check all plays within the final two minutes of either half, all other video review is left in the hand (or pocket) of the head coach.

The coach may throw a red “challenge” flag, to signal a dispute. Instant replay is then used to determine whether the coach’s hissy fit is warranted.

Replay in baseball is where it gets dicey. Baseball has a rich tradition of controversial games and terrible calls.

Since the video era began, audiences have become more and more critical of the man behind each base. Wrong calls are scrutinized more than ever before, since we see how blatantly wrong the same call is, six times a day on ESPN.

Replays are already used a small amount in the sport, determining whether home runs clear the fence.

The controversial part is, at what point do you draw the line? If you have it for homers, then you should have it for fair and foul calls.

If you have it for fair and foul calls, you should have it for baserunning calls. If you have it for baserunning calls, you should have it for balls and strikes.

But if you have it for balls and strikes, the umpires better start looking for work.

The biggest push for video came this season after Armando Galarraga’s perfect game was stripped by a blown call at first base. Galarraga wasn’t angry, but he doesn’t want history repeated.

“Instant replay is going to help the game,” he said. “Technology is so involved in the game, I think with really big stuff, you can use it.”

Galarraga finished by saying that he only supports it if it doesn’t slow down the game. This is the purist’s biggest worry. If all close calls are reviewed, it could add significant time to a baseball game. A 2 ½-hour baseball game with eight controversial calls (at five minutes per review) could end up taking three hours and 10 minutes (simple math, folks.)

This doesn’t seem to bother the fans. Rasmussen Reports surveyed baseball fans in 2009 and reported that 55 percent support instant replay in sports.

Lee Guilder, a University of Tampa student, president of Hillel on campus and avid baseball fan, was asked about the technology conundrum.

“Instant replay in sports, and in baseball should be used to the maximum,” Guilder said. “We have the equipment. I just don’t see what’s holding us back.”

But Guilder understands the time constraints and suggests a challenge system similar to football. Another option he mentioned (which has been discussed by the MLB) is video review only for late-inning calls. Others have gone public with their desire for replay, including former Orioles manager Earl Weaver and umpire Tim McClelland.

But MLB commissioner Bud Selig is standing strong.

Stating that baseball has flourished for years both despite and because of human error,  Selig has mentioned that umpires get “98 percent” of close calls right, which contrasts sharply with ESPN’s report of a roughly 80 percent accuracy rate.
The league is still researching how more instant replay could affect the game, and doesn’t rule out the possibility in the future.

Baseball, and sports in general will be affected by instant replay for years to come. (Even rodeo recently implemented a video reviewing system, to ensure timing accuracies.) It just comes down to how much, where and when.

At what point do we draw the line?  Replays in the Olympics? Seven hour Rays games? At what point do we let humans judge a human game?

Miles Parks can be reached at mparks@spartans.ut.edu.