NFL Play Reviews and Slow Motion Technology

I think that most of the problems with refereeing in any game could be ended by changing the emphasis from whether the referee’s call was correct. All that should matter is convincing the referee: not whether he was correct to be convinced.

In my world the job of a team would be to convince the referee that they had won the game. They would do that by winning the majority of plays in the mind of the referee.

For example, if a tennes player can convince the umpire that his ball was in then that is all that is required to fairly win the point. It does not matter if a fancy camera shows that the umpire was wrong, because the object was to convince the umpire.

Of course that would make the games very dependent on the honesty of the umpire. THere is a role for the fancy camera in showing whether an umpire is sufficiently good at his job to earn the privilege of presiding at the big games.

If they are going to use these slow motion videos for things where time matters, a standard would have to be set for each type of timed call, and a real-time clock used along with the video to be certain the ball was in control for that predetermined amount of time. In a way, this slow motion method could be real accurate in determining that.

In other situations, like “did he go over the line or not”, these videos could be a real game changer from the much more subjective eyes of a referee out on the field.

As long as every game is played on a level field (always use technology or never use it), I’m not sure how much it matters, except before it may have depended wholly on the call of a single referee, and now there’s less doubt as to what might have happened.

I say do away with the slow motion replay all together. I don’t recall basketball using this sort of technology. The ref calls it like he sees it, sure he’s wrong every now and again, but such is life. The slow motion replay could easily be turned into a crutch which supports refs that may not deserve to be working at a professional level. If a referee comes to rely on the slow motion capture of film to make tough calls, then we begin breeding referees that can’t make such calls. However, buy relying a refs eye, and judgment, you foster the development of that skill in your referees. Slow motion could be used, post game, to determine if a ref had a “good eye” or not, but shouldn’t be utilized during the game. You could even use slow motion replays, post game, to help determine if a ref should be promoted to the professional level.

I think instant replay (including slo-mo replay) has a place in football — and other sports. The important thing is to consider whether the call is a judgment call (e.g., dangerous play in soccer, late hits in football, charge vs block in basketball, strike v foul in baseball) or a technical call (e.g., in/out of bounds in most sports, hitting the net in tennis, stepping on the three-point line in basketball, foul vs fair ball in baseball), and whether a replay will disrupt the flow of the game.

Judgment calls must, by definition, be left to the official, and this is really where the ref’s worth comes into play.

Technical calls, on the other hand, are a welcome arena for technology – as long as it doesn’t disrupt play too much. I noticed an example of this when I caught a bit of the Australian Open. I’m not sure of all the rules, but apparently players could challenge calls and within seconds officials were able to tell digitally if a ball was in or out. Given there are breaks between volleys, this seemed to be a great application. (I can even imagine tennis courts of the future where there are immediate signals to players when a ball hits the net or out of bounds – totally removing the need for human judgment.)

It’d be difficult to implement this in soccer, however. When a ball goes out of bounds over the sideline, for example, and the ref makes a call on who touched it last, the team with the throw has the opportunity to play quickly and gain an advantage. (It’s not like basketball where both teams get setup and then official puts the ball in play signalling “game on.”) There’s no room for a “challenge” that wouldn’t disrupt the flow. Even in instances when there is a break, it’s difficult to find a way to remedy a bad call. If instant replay shows the ball never completely crossed the goal line and, therefore, a goal shouldn’t have been awarded – what do you do then? Starting at any sort of set piece wouldn’t recreate the situation after the goal was called and it would no doubt end up in unfair advantages in many instances. It seems the best option is to rely on the ref’s judgment … unless, of course, they come up with the soccer version of what I described for tennis above … sensors that cause lights to come up and sirens to go off when a goal is scored, or something like that.