Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
I thought instant replay was instituted to correct obvious mistakes.
Here we have the most obvious blown call in recent memory and despite all the technology and experience in the replay booth the system is impotent.
If that call stood despite being so obviously wrong what is the point of reviewing ANY call?
|
It's just the evolution of replay. I'm surprised they went with allowing a runner ruled down by contact to result in a turnover if replay determines it was a fumble. But even in that case it has to be obvious the other team would have recovered the ball if the runner hadn't been ruled down. They probably didn't include the incomplete pass/fumble situation because it hadn't happened that way very often. They can review it on the offseason and add it as a reviewable play like the down by contact. The same principals can be applied.
I am in favor of the concept of using instant replay to help officials get calls right. You can't always be in the right place at the right time or get the right view of every play and there are many times I wish I could look at replay in our games. My issue with instant replay is it forces the rules to become much more black and white and absolute. A good example from football was the 12 men on the field in last year's Super Bowl. If the player gets within a yard or so from the sideline, you usually let it go but he techncially violated the rule and it was overturned.
Another good analogy will be if baseball extends its replay to other types of plays. The foot swipe on a force at second or the tag of a runner when the ball obviously beats him could then be overturned. Baseball is saying they will not expand instant replay beyond where they are, but you know it is eventually coming.