Deep breath.
I like instant replay in sports. I think it should be used as widely as possible when suitable.
Exhale.
Here's the secret. Because it's always right. And most fans want the game to be played fairly and evenly, which means that you don't win because the ref/ump didn't see right. On big things such as a touchdown or goal, the NFL and NHL are right, it should be used. Congratulations to Major League Baseball for realizing that if the World Series goes one way because a foul ball is called a homerun, that would be bad. They're fixing the mistake before it gets made.
I don't get the whole "oh, human error hehe" argument against it...if human error from officials is such an endearing part of the game, why not employ Mr Magoo clones for every role. I call BS.
Sure, instant replay on balls and strikes or 2 v. 3 point shots would interrupt the flow, and lead to a worse experience. But for the big, gamemaker calls, instant replay just makes good sense. And do you know what is possibly the biggest gamemaking call in sports? Whether someone scored in international soccer. Hey, if the average winning margin is somewhere around 1 point, getting that single call wrong would be a game-changer. So what does international soccer do?
FIFA's International Football Association Board voted last March to stop all experiments with technology that could determine whether balls cross goal lines.
Morons.
1 comment:
"I think it should be used as widely as possible when suitable."
"Sure, instant replay on balls and strikes or 2 v. 3 point shots would interrupt the flow, and lead to a worse experience."
I think there are times in football where the calls aren't that significant. Sure, they COULD turn out to be. But they often are not. How long before they use it on tag plays in baseball? Same thing, could be the biggest play of the game, but often not.
Big gamemaker calls are in the eye of the beholder.
Post a Comment