Instant What? : Most Owners Say They Haven’t Missed the Replay and Are Against Bringing it Back

Jim Finks, general manager of the New Orleans Saints and chairman of the NFL’s Competition Committee, was answering a call regarding the future of instant replay.

“What future?” Finks said sarcastically.

How soon we forget. Instant replay, which had a six-year run in the league until it was voted out in 1992, should have been well along the comeback trail by now if it had any hope of returning in 1993.

But despite some controversial officials’ calls this season that might have been rectified by replay, including one that involved the Dallas Cowboys, there have been no loud cries for replay’s return.

In fact, the future of replay barely has a pulse. The measure fell four votes short of the 21 required for owners’ approval last season and would probably fail by a larger margin if a vote were conducted today.

Finks, a replay proponent, cannot believe the apathy.

“I was very surprised that people who were victims of not having instant replay this (season) were very blase about it,” Finks said. “Even the moderators and commentators didn’t make a tremendous issue of it.”

Finks figured that a few gross injustices in 1992 would lead to replay’s return. Finks and other proponents thought the moment came at RFK Stadium on Dec. 13, when the Redskins defeated the Cowboys, 20-17, after Troy Aikman was ruled to have fumbled in the end zone on a play that appeared to have been an incomplete forward pass.

Washington recovered in the end zone for a touchdown.

Jerry Seeman, the NFL’s director of officials, claims replay would have proved that field officials made the right call, a fumble by Aikman, although replay would also have shown that Cowboy running back Emmitt Smith’s knee was down after he recovered the loose ball for a moment. So, the play should have resulted in a Redskin safety.

What was amazing about the play was the public clamor Cowboy owner Jerry Jones did not make over it.

Although his team was apparently victimized, it did not sway his opinion of replay.

“I’m a traditionalist, basically,” Jones said. “I like it being handled on the field, going with the guys on the field. I think it’s worked good.”

Jones was not even that upset with the Aikman call.

“We would have spent a lot of time reviewing that in the instant replay booth and still maybe not have made the right decision,” he said. “That was one of the criticisms of replay. We had it, we used it, and even instant replay overturned some decisions that shouldn’t have been overturned.”

And believe this if you will: Both Jones and Buffalo Bills’ owner Ralph Wilson said they would still oppose instant replay, even if one of their teams loses Super Bowl XXVII on a play that might have been rectified with the replay system.

“I am adamantly opposed to replay,” Wilson said this week. “I have been since the beginning. I did vote for it as a favor to one owner for one year. But I’ve been against it every other year. I say the game should be refereed on the field, it keeps the flow of the game going. It gets the human element in the game.”

So what if Jim Kelly throws an apparent game-winning touchdown pass to Andre Reed on Sunday, but the official rules that Reed caught the ball out of bounds? What if television replays show that Reed was inbounds and the official blew the call?

“If we lose the Super Bowl (because of it), my vote will still be against instant replay,” Wilson maintained. “Maybe we’ll get back some day and we’ll get a good call and win the Super Bowl. I say it averages out. You can’t make everything perfect in life.”

It was obvious that replay was in trouble when it was voted out, despite its rectifying a bad call in last year’s Super Bowl when a touchdown catch by Redskin receiver Art Monk was overturned after replay showed that he did not have both feet inbounds.

The most frequent complaint about replay was the time it took to make a decision on a call.

On average, NFL games were shorter in 1992, but not by much. The average time per game dropped from 3:01.40 in 1991 to 2:58.28 in ’92.

Although Seeman cannot take an official stand on replay, he has made it known to others that his officiating crews operated much more efficiently without the burden of instant replay.

“Our total program has been very good this year,” Seeman said.

He did note that the number of request for pool reports, official requests from reporters to clarify an official’s call, dropped from 15 in 1991 to seven in ’92.

He denied that his officials were more relaxed without the specter of replay looming over their shoulders.

“I’ve worked personally with instant replay and without, and I can assure you that when you’re working a game, you’re working that game,” Seeman said. “You don’t even think about instant replay, everything happens so rapidly. As far as an impact there, I couldn’t agree with that, although I know that’s a perception that people have.”

Replay proponents have almost lost the will to fight.

Seattle Seahawk Coach Tom Flores, another proponent who serves on the Competition Committee, says replay is a lost cause.

“I don’t think it will pass,” he said. “Not unless something really dramatic happens in the Super Bowl. At this point, no one really misses it.

“The instant replay theory is still a good theory. The complaints were that it didn’t work, that it wasn’t foolproof. It wasn’t meant to be foolproof. But it was 90% correct. And it was time-consuming. I think maybe without it, it’s shown that our officiating isn’t that bad. I think everyone assumed our officiating was bad.”

Flores said replay will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.

“People always remember the two minutes you had to wait around,” he said. “It seemed like an eternity sometimes. That’s what they remember, waiting for a decision. They don’t remember the ones that are the good calls, or the good decisions, or the good reversals. They always remember the bad ones.”