“Hey Blue! The Game Isn’t About You!”

                              "Hey Blue! The Game Isn’t About You!
                                                    Or: Why Don't All Sports Institute Instant Replay?"

It seems to me that there are a lot of games that are decided or at least altered significantly, by decisions made by referees and umpires. My major complaint is not that they made the mistakes, it’s that they don’t take the necessary precautions to make sure that the call is the right one. Ask the players, some will say some of the umpires (or referees) have a bigger ego than them. That may be hard to believe, based on some of the comments and conceited attitudes many players display on a daily basis, but I think it is true in some cases. They seem to think they are always right, and the simple fact is that they just aren’t. it’s even worse is when they don’t even see the play in question and still make the call with all the confidence in the world, without asking the other umpires for help. Then there are the times when they get the call wrong, but refuse to admit they made a mistake, and it drives most of us who notice it, crazy.
　
First let me clarify my position, and explain that I fully understand the importance of the human element in sports, along with the fact that it has been necessary throughout history, and shaped all of the games and scores in the past. I realize that mistakes are common because, of course, to err is human, but I simply don’t see that as a viable excuse any more. In the past, there has been no way police most of these bad calls and you just had to live with the consequences and move on, no matter how bad it was. Now, virtually every game is televised, each game is played by million dollar players, in front of millions of people who pay top dollar for their seats, adding weighted significance to every decision made within each game, and instant replay is a prominent phrase in our everyday vocabulary. We have all the technological capabilities and the sports businesses have enough money to institute any plan that makes the most sense and ensures equal competitive balance. Quite frankly, it is somewhat surprising that it hasn’t been done already, since sports are so important in our society and for our economy.
　
In this technologically advanced age that we live in, it affords us the ability to watch every play in slow motion, from several different camera positions, and see every questionable call in every sport and how it should be called. It allows us to see if the runner was out or safe, if the ball was in or out, if the shot was in time, if his foot was behind the line, and all of the small things that are virtually impossible to see in real time, when you have as many other responsibilities as umpires and referees have. With all the attention to detail, where every play is dissected and magnified with infinite scrutiny and expose missed calls, I simply cannot understand why every precaution isn’t taken to ensure the right call is made. With all the money involved in sports these days, and the importance of each game for the fans, the players, the owners, and the sport in general, it only seems logical that they should do whatever they can to make sure that the games are decided by the players and nothing else, with little to no advantages unfairly provided by external parties. Simply put, if you have the capabilities to make sure that the outcome of games is not decided by one referee’s mistake, then why not do so, to maintain the integrity of the game, which is their primary function.
　
I will concentrate on baseball for a moment longer, because it is probably the sport that would use replay the most because there are the most questionable calls. There are some other things that umpires do that don’t seem to make any sense and seem to relate more to the ego aspect than anything else. First off, why do home plate umpires insist on making the call on a close check swing themselves? It makes absolutely no sense and it seems like they just want to say that they can watch the pitch and the batter’s swing at the same time, even though it isn’t their responsibility to watch their swing, not to mention that they don’t have the right angle to see if the batter swung in some cases. It takes exactly one second to point down to the 1^st base umpire (like he is supposed to do) and then another second for that umpire to make the call, since he is watching the hitter once the ball is thrown. They can say they make the call themselves because it saves time, but that is just ridiculous. I try to figure out why they do it, but all I can come up with is it’s all about their ego. It saves little to no time, serves no real purpose except bringing on the possibility of making an unnecessary, inaccurate judgment call, which is the exact opposite of what their job description entails. I would argue that it actually lengthens games because coaches and players in the dugout will often yell out at the umpire, making the umpire halt the action to yell back, and sometimes the coach will come out of the dugout for a prolonged “discussion” (see Kirk Gibson vs. Bob Davidson, 2011) which certainly doesn’t help shorten the game. In fact, in those cases, the home plate umpire’s defiant determination to make every call no matter what, could hurt a team even more, because he may take exception to that player/coach questioning his authority and throw them out of the game (so now they lose a player or coach, after an out was already wrongly assessed, all for nothing).
　
I am definitely a proponent of instant replay in every sport, with whatever limitations will help better the sport, and as little delay in the action as possible. I completely disagree with the argument that replay will lengthen the games and they are already too long, and all that nonsense. If you want to shorten the length of basketball or baseball games, cut the time in between innings shorter or take away timeouts to reduce the commercial breaks; those cause games to go past their normal duration more than anything, in my opinion. The need for advertising throughout the game makes the games go on and on, especially late in games when there are pitching changes, or all the timeouts in the last two minutes of a basketball game that drag it out to twenty minutes in real time. More importantly, there are already a lot of delays, especially in baseball, where a coach (or sometimes a player) argues with umpires for several minutes on the field. Guess how that could be avoided? Use a fifth umpire in each game, who sits near a replay monitor somewhere in the ballpark. That fifth umpire can communicate with one or all of the umpires (just talking to the crew chief would probably be easiest) after watching the replay of a questionable call, and within seconds they can change the call if necessary. It wouldn’t take any longer than the delay between batters, and I think it would actually save time, because it would virtually eliminate the lengthy arguments by managers or players. I would argue that every single baseball game is extended because of a lengthy argument, if not two or three, between a coach or player and an umpire or two, and if those could virtually be eliminated, game length would be automatically decreased. It would make the competition more evenly matched too, and results wouldn’t be skewed by anything other than the players’ performances, which is exactly how it should be. Baseball just recently started allowing instant replay, but only on homerun calls and a few other types of plays, but it is still very limited, and doesn’t really help much. It only comes up once in a while, and tends to waste time since all the umpires have to run off the field to look at a screen and delay the game to watch the replay.
　
In my opinion, every out call on the bases should be reviewable and then overturned if the wrong call is made, or vice versa. If they force the managers into a limit, like football, that would be fine, as long as they had the opportunity to challenge nearly every disputable play in the field. It would go something like this: a runner is called out on a stolen base attempt, which is immediately shown on the review screen in slow motion to the fifth umpire. The manager throws out his hanky or raises his hand or signals the umpire for a review in whatever fashion they deem best, and meanwhile the replay is already being viewed by the fifth umpire in a booth in the press box or whatever. He sees that the runner’s foot was on the base before the tag was applied, speaks into his microphone and tells the crew chief that he was safe, and before the runner makes it back to the dugout, he is called back to the base and the out is taken away. Simple as that, no time lost, no team hurt by a botched call, but maybe a few egos hurt as they realize that their irrefutable calls can be reversed.
　
Really, what’s so wrong with taking an extra second or even a half minute to make sure that the call is the right one, when so much could be riding on every call? I can’t tell you how many times a runner has been called out, and several instant replays show that they were safe, before the next batter even makes his way to the plate. If you have the capability of ensuring an accurate determinations every time, using the short amount of time already allocated within normal parameters of the game to do so, then why not do it? I know it changes the game in the eyes of the traditionalists, since replays weren’t in effect in the past, and those mistakes have helped sculpt some of baseball history. However, if we have the capability to virtually eliminate unfair competitive advantages that result from mistakes by third-party mediators, who aren’t supposed to negatively affect the results, it seems like a necessary evolution within the game. Things change all the time, and all sports have tried to make changes for the better, when they had the chance to; it only makes sense.
　
I’m not saying that we should use replay for balls and strikes, because that is one of those interpretation calls, where each umpire has a different view of the strike zone. That would be certainly go against the tradition of the game, taking it too far in the eyes of most baseball people, and more than likely, would cause more problems than solution. I personally wouldn’t mind eliminating all home plate umpires, because I don’t agree with the fact that when a pitch is in the strike zone some umpires don’t call it a strike; it just doesn’t seem right. It would be interesting if they used the computer system that is installed already in several stadiums, which is used to judge umpires’ performance and accuracy relative to the ‘actual’ strike zone (and used on tv for nearly every game). Even though it is strange how each umpire interprets the space between the belt and knees and across the plate differently, it is one of those imperfections that make the game what it is, and really can’t be changed. That would be taking it a bit too far probably, at least until the distant future, if people still exist and continue to seek constant entertainment…and don‘t mind robots taking the umpires‘ place.
　
Moving on to some other sports, there are too many limitations, especially football and sometimes basketball, that hinder the usefulness of the replay system, and don’t make much sense either. If you allow replay in the last two minutes in basketball, then why not be able to check everything, like whether he was out of bounds, whether he traveled before he shot the ball, or was it a legal play, instead of just checking if the shot was in time and where he/she shot the ball from? A play in the NBA Finals could have changed the entire outcome of the season, when Mario Chalmers made a 3-point basket at the end of a quarter, but he didn’t have both feet across the half-court line when he shot the ball so it should not have counted. They looked at the replay, but only checked to see if the ball left his hand before time expired and didn’t look at the fact that his foot was on the line when he received the pass, which is an illegal play. The shot counted and his team, the Heat won the game, in a close game, so those three points were HUGE, and they shouldn’t have counted. What’s the point of using replay to judge a play like that, if you aren’t going to look at the play in it’s entirety? The idea is to get the call right, isn’t it? Hopefully in the near future they will extend the use of instant replay so games aren’t decided by referees who make a bad call late in a game, because they didn’t see the play, or just made a bad call, which are common occurrences.
　
In football, there are so many limitations, and so many plays that can’t be reviewed it seems backwards really. I also don’t like how they only get three challenges in a game, so they have to decide whether to challenge certain plays and sometimes have to challenge just to overturn a terrible call, through no fault of their own. If it didn’t take a relatively long time to review those plays, they probably wouldn’t limit the amount of challenges so tightly, so I can understand why they do. If they could use an extra ref in a separate replay booth to view the plays that might speed up the process and take away some of the limitations, as far as number of reviews allowed and number of plays that are reviewable, which can only help the game in the long run. At least they are trying to correct the mistakes that are bound to happen, since all refs and umps are in fact human.
　
Hockey only needs it for one call, to see if a goal was scored legally or not, and thankfully they take every precaution to make sure they get that call right. But games like soccer and hockey don’t really need to rely on instant replay much, because only calls like off-sides or too many men can be reviewed really, and of course the all-important goals. I don’t think the last World Cup allowed instant replay, which I don’t understand at all, since it would be easy to institute, and based on the world’s soccer fans’ fervor for the game, it would seem logical to make sure the goals are scored legally, since a riot could start upon any notable change in the game. I don’t know much about those sports, but I know it would be easy to monitor certain plays, to make sure no one gets away with anything that gives them an unfair advantage.
　
If you want to look at it from a monetary point of view, which most professional sports do, they can go to a commercial break during the replay delays and make more money, if that makes them consider it more. I don’t want more commercials, but I want the playing field to be even, if you will, with no unfair disadvantages for one team that are beyond the players’ control. Of course, the burden lies primarily with the sports' commissioners and rule makers, to make their games more competitively balanced, using the technology that is readily available to ensure fairness, whether the referees and umpires like it or not.  I don’t know see why that is so much to ask for….