Instant Replay Not Missed, Probably to Stay Unplugged

Kansas City Coach Marty Schottenheimer was home for the evening, enjoying a victory the Chiefs registered against the Washington Redskins earlier in the day. As he was watching the Sunday night game between Denver and the New York Giants in Week 11, one play made him cringe. At the end of a run, Broncos running back Greg Lewis lost the football and the Giants recovered.

“Oh no, here we go,” Schottenheimer said to himself. “That guy (Lewis) was down. No fumble there. (The officials) blew it.”

At that point, ESPN began rolling the replay videotape. In full speed, in slow motion, the replay showed . . . the officials got it right. Lewis had lost the ball before he hit the ground.

By the time the replay was finished for the television viewer, the Giants were ready to run their play.

“It was absolutely the right call,” Schottenheimer says. “And I would have sworn (it was) the other way.”

Not only did the officials make the right call, but the coaches and players didn’t have to interrupt their train of thought to agonize over a replay official’s decision. The game moved on.

The play further galvanized Schottenheimer’s opinion on the use of instant replay. “I think the game is far better off without it,” says Schottenheimer, who used to be a strong advocate. “There are going to be plays (that are wrong), but this isn’t an exact science. We as coaches and players make errors. If anything, it’s given the on-field officials a better opportunity to do their job, and I think they’ve shown they’re doing an excellent job.”

Twelve weeks into the 1992 season--a season in which many observers expected officials to be under constant fire as the NFL returned to a replay-less system for the first time since 1985--the system hasn’t been missed. The officials are performing at a higher level without the replay system, which often seemed to create as many problems as it solved.

In fact, a league study strongly supports the notion that officiating has improved without the aid--or hindrance--of instant replay.

Last season, there were 90 instant-replay reversals out of 570 times games were stopped for reviews. That is an average of 5.3 reversals per week. Through 11 weeks this season, the league study indicated there were 27 erroneous calls that would have been reversed by instant replay. That is an average of 2.45 would-be reversals per week.

“Compared to last year, it’s a significant reduction in number of calls,” says Jerry Seeman, the NFL’s director of officiating and a former referee. “We are analyzing every game and every play in which instant replay would have been involved from previous years. We’re keeping elaborate statistics in order to report back to the owners and competition committee.” Seeman and his staff also are preparing edited tapes of plays in 1992 to present to the competition committee for review after the season.

Though a league official says the NFL continues to hold its breath for that one big play that detonates the pro-replay crowd, the one-season banishment of replay has been a success.

It has been such a success that Dallas Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones, the only owner in the NFL’s competition committee, is certain that instant replay will not be resuscitated in any form at the league meetings March 14-19 in Palm Springs, Calif.

“I think if we voted today, it would not receive any more votes than it did last March (when the 17-11 vote in favor of replay fell four votes short of the required three-fourths approval),” Jones says. “If anything, it might go the other way, more of a resolve that the game is better without it.”

There’s even better news.

New Orleans Saints President and General Manager Jim Finks, the chairman of the competition committee who remains a staunch supporter of instant replay, concedes that it could become a dead issue.

“If there’s a scenario next March where instant replay is voted out again, I think we can kiss it goodbye forever,” Finks says.

Good.

But there are still five weeks of the regular season remaining and a full month of January playoff games, capped by the Super Bowl on January 31 in Pasadena.

One big blown call will stir the debate. Or will it?

When the owners voted last March to suspend replay for a year, they did so after reviewing the most comprehensive evaluation ever compiled by the competition committee.

Here are excerpts from the committee’s pro and con arguments, as well as updated thoughts from a panel of NFL men: Seeman, Jones, Finks, Schottenheimer, Buffalo Bills General Manager Bill Polian, New York Giants General Manager George Young and San Diego Chargers Coach Bobby Ross. (Jones, Finks, Polian, Young and Schottenheimer are members of the competition committee; Ross is in his first season as an NFL head coach.)

PERFORMANCE

The records maintained by the league’s officiating department say the accuracy rate of replay officials was approximately 80% during the six-year period replay was used.

In 1991, for example, the NFL determined that nine of the 90 reversals by the replay officials were incorrect and 12 other plays should have been reversed. So the league reported a total of 102 reversal opportunities and 81 correct decisions, giving instant replay an efficiency rate of 79.4%.

PRO: An 80% accuracy rate may not seem impressive, but the most important thing is that 90 plays were corrected which, without the system, would have been allowed to stand.

CON: It is estimated the on-field officials are correct 90 to 95% of the time, and they have only fractions of seconds to make their calls. The replay officials had as much as two minutes on each play, and electronic devices to help them. Yet their efficiency is an unacceptable and apparently inevitable 80%. The system merely adds another layer of error.

“The game belongs on the field,” Young says. “I’ll take my chances with those guys on the field. They’re in better position than the cameras. The problem with replay is that you’ve added an eighth human. The more humans, the more chances of mistakes. The percentage of mistakes by the replay official bore that out.”

Polian: “I don’t know. In our Monday night game (November 16 at Miami), I saw two plays that could have had an impact. One came when a Thurman Thomas touchdown was disallowed. The replay clearly showed it would have been overturned. That still concerns me.” Thomas was ruled out of bounds at the 1-yard line on a 17-yard run in the third quarter of the Bills’ 26-20 victory. Buffalo ended up settling for a field goal.

Finks: “Instant replay is just flat out a tool we should use to officiate our games. If it can prevent a major disaster, which is inevitable, we should employ it.”

Schottenheimer: “I see a confidence and control by the on-field officials that wasn’t as strong (with replay). The quality of on-field officiating has never been better.”

Ross: “When I first came into the league and went to the meetings last March, I didn’t have an opinion. I didn’t really care. I think now I would cast a vote for instant replay. There have been plays this year that could have been corrected. To me, the game is so competitive, you hate to lose a game on a missed call.”

Seeman: “I’ve been down on that field. When instant replay was instituted as a tool, it was to assist the official. There are plays where you get screened out. There are some tough sideline calls that happen occasionally faster than the human eye can detect. On the other hand, I am confident that we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that our officials are fully prepared in a proper environment and we’re proud of the results.”

FLOW OF THE GAME

Through 11 weeks in 1991, the average game took 3 hours, 22 seconds. Through 11 weeks in 1992, the average was 2:59:17. That’s a difference of 1:05.

The average delay resulting from instant replay was 1:48 in ‘91, which was the highest total in its six years of operation.

PRO: The number of times the game is stopped (for replay) is very acceptable and not intrusive when you consider that there are about 35,000 plays in a season.

CON: The increase in stoppages and reversals shows that replay is too bothersome for the sport, especially in regard to such trivial matters as spotting the football. On the other hand, if we concede that 90 reversals out of 35,000 plays is a minuscule number, then why spend the money and time on a system that has such a minor effect?

Jones: “All I know is that it’s a lot easier to watch a game without instant replay interrupting the flow of the game.”

Young: “It’s a better game without (replay). The referee runs the game. With replay, the referee did not run the game because he was overruled upstairs. When the referee knows he’s in charge, he can pace the game much better.”

Finks: “You know, until a week or so ago, the difference between the time of games was only seconds. To me, the argument that it reduces playing time is a bunch of bull. Yes, I will admit that there has been a better flow to the game, but that flow is interrupted, too, by the crew conferences.”

Schottenheimer: “The best thing about no replay is the flow of game. When a play is made, as a coach, I immediately go on to the next play. It gives fans a chance to go on to the next play, as well as the players. It doesn’t break down the rhythm like it did before.”

Ross: “To me, if we can work within a time frame of two minutes, that’s acceptable for a delay if it’s going to correct a wrong call.”

COMPETITIVE ISSUES

Did instant replay provide a fundamental fairness that had been lacking? That is, did the system help maintain a level playing field for both teams?

This discussion focuses on such points as the limited categories that replay governed, the number of television cameras deployed by the networks and decisions by network personnel concerning which area of play to concentrate on.

PRO: If a network sets up four TV cameras and three replay units for a given game, it’s fair because those pieces of equipment cover the action for both teams. The teams in games with a small number of cameras probably will be involved in games at other points in the season when there are larger numbers of cameras--for example, Monday night.

CON: If Detroit, say, is in a race for its division title with Chicago and the Lions play Tampa Bay on a Sunday afternoon, CBS may not feature the game in more than a few markets and may cover it with a small number of cameras and replays. In fact, that’s a strong possibility these days because the Sunday networks have made cutbacks in equipment and personnel. Suppose Detroit loses a game on a poor on-field ruling involving a touchdown that cannot be reversed because there are no good camera angles. Then, the next night on ABC, the Bears win under similar circumstances because there is every available angle of the play in question. That’s like covering one game with five officials, the other with seven.

Young: “All the (con) arguments we made last offseason were very legitimate. To me, the only game that’s ever truly been decided by replay came in that Green Bay game (in 1989) on the issue of the quarterback (Don Majkowski) passing over the line of scrimmage. Instant replay blew it.” The Packers won the game, 14-13, when the replay official overturned an on-field ruling that Majkowski had passed the line of scrimmage when he threw a 14-yard touchdown pass with 32 seconds remaining. The Bears were so infuriated by the outcome that they put an asterisk next to the game in their media guide and called it, “Instant Replay Game.”

Polian: “I still believe you can rest easier at night knowing a wrong call was reversed.”

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE

During the six years of instant replay, the main question was: Has replay become an indispensable part of the product the NFL offers the television viewer?

A large number of fans say yes. In a national phone poll sponsored by Pearle Vision and conducted from October 30 through November 9, 87% of the 5,890 respondents said they would like instant replay returned to the NFL.

PRO: With more than 100 million people looking at the Super Bowl last January, how could we deny them the reversal of the catch by Redskins receiver Art Monk in the end zone, even though Washington ultimately won the game? The camera angles were outstanding and the evidence was clear. It was probably one of the most talked-about plays in the game. And it kept the game from being more one-sided than it was.

CON: There was a critical pass interference in the same game that was generally conceded to have been missed by the on-field officials. Millions saw that, too.

Jones: “The thing that convinced me to originally vote in favor of replay is the argument that the fans got involved and the television aspect. As it turns out, it was something that involved the fans, but in a critical way. I mean, how smart is it to focus and bring all the attention to bear that officiating isn’t perfect, rather than focus on the great plays by the players? I think we have resolved with the fans that the officials do their best to make the call and let’s live with it.”

Young: “I’m not into the entertainment part of this discussion. As much as the fans are a critical part of the game, when have we ever gone to the fans and asked them to lay down our rules?”

Finks: “I will say that it’s been very, very silent. This time last year, you would have heard people talking that it’s the greatest tool or just get rid of the damn thing. But the majority of fans like instant replay. That’s clear. It’s never going away. Why not use it to our best advantage?”

Polian: “I think, from what I’ve heard from the fans, they don’t miss it.”

ONE SOLUTION

When the owners meet in March in Palm Springs, instant replay will be subject to another vote. It will need 21 votes to be reinstituted.

If it does return, it clearly will be in a limited form. Some say the NFL should adopt the old United States Football League rule that allowed coaches to make a limited number of challenges in a game. When they made a challenge, they risked losing a timeout.

“I thought it worked good because coaches did not use it indiscriminately,” says Polian, a former USFL personnel director. “They always checked with their coaches upstairs. (Former USFL coach and current Saints Coach) Jim Mora was a master at it.” Mora may have been a master at it, but he is firmly against the rule. He says it created too much confusion between the coaches on the sideline and in the booth.

Schottenheimer: “That’s all a head coach needs--another responsibility during the course of a game.”

Young: “It’s a bad idea. The issue is eliminating mistakes--we’re afraid one big call will blow a game, right?--and the USFL rule doesn’t cover that. By the end of a game, when that really big play happens, a coach might not have any challenges left. It also puts a coach in a very precarious position with his players, where players are running off the field screaming, ‘I didn’t touch the ball.’ Or, ‘The ref blew the call.’ Now the coach uses the challenge and it turns out the player was wrong--that makes for a very messy situation. It did in the USFL.”

Finks says that if replay resurfaces--a big if--it will cover a smaller range of infractions.

“Replay would be probably limited to boundary calls,” Finks says. “Those are critical calls. The fumble is an awfully difficult call to make (even for the replay official), whether he was down before or after the fumble. That becomes time consuming. Boundary calls are split-second calls and they can be huge mistakes. I’d like to see replay come back in that particular form.”

How does NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue stand on the issue? Last March, he publicly spoke on its behalf because the competition committee voted, 4-3, in favor of retaining it.

But in a league meeting last January, Tagliabue surprised several owners such as Jones when he hinted for the first time that he was not 100% behind instant replay.

Chances are, a high-ranking league official says, Tagliabue is likely to adopt an even firmer stance against replay.

Let’s hope so. Instant replay as an officiating tool was a bad idea.

Bury it for good.