A Plug for Restoring NFL Instant Replay

The return of instant replay to the NFL next season should be a no-brainer.

Pro football needs instant replay; without it, bad calls that should be corrected are allowed to affect the flow and outcome of games, which should never happen.

But because this is the NFL, where logic and common sense don’t always prevail, instant-replay supporters find themselves depending on two entrenched adversaries, Paul Tagliabue and Jerry Jones, to get the measure passed at next week’s league meetings in Palm Desert.

No wonder replay advocates aren’t about to declare victory.

Jones, the volatile Cowboys owner, looms as the potential swing vote on the replay issue. He’s not a big replay supporter, but he has let it be known that he also doesn’t want to be the guy responsible for keeping replay out of the league in 1997. As a result, if the replay vote comes down to the swing of one ballot, which those favoring replay believe it could, supporters anticipate Jones will wind up on their side.

But Jones’ emotions could change repeatedly within the charged atmosphere of the meetings, where tension is sure to build on this provocative issue. That’s where Tagliabue comes in; it’s time that he delivers the 23 votes (three-fourths of the teams) needed to get the measure passed. And if that means schmoozing Jones, then he needs to do it.

Tagliabue, after all, allowed replay to be voted down in 1991, remaining inexplicably neutral on the issue and removing himself from the debate even though he since has demonstrated he favors replay. It was a typically weak showing by Tagliabue, particularly when it comes to on-field issues. That’s why football men in the league don’t respect his office; too much emphasis in New York is placed on revenues and not enough on matters that affect the game.

But at least with instant replay, Tagliabue has begun to move in the right direction. With coaches and front-office people overwhelmingly in favor of replay’s return, it’s an opportunity for him to prove emphatically that he cares about the game like he says he does.

He has deftly handled the revival of instant replay, easing in its return instead of trying to hammer it down the throats of teams uncertain about its need. At last year’s meetings, when a vote on replay would have failed, Tagliabue never allowed it to be considered on the floor. Instead, he declared the need to study new replay technology during preseason games, stressing this was part of his previously stated feeling that the league has to become pro-technology and adapt itself to the changing world.

He even told a goofy story to support his stance. It seems that after he saw his daughter walking around with a backpack, it triggered a thought that maybe a replay monitor could be carried on someone’s back during games and walked out to the referee during reviews of plays. No one laughed at the story, but at least he had attempted to put a new spin on why replay needed a second life.

The summer experiment proved successful. It dressed up replay in new clothes, making it much more user- and fan-friendly. Gone were the inept instant-replay officials, whose indecisiveness resulted in excruciatingly long delays. In their place was the referee, who reviewed plays in question using an on-field monitor. And the plays that could be reviewed were limited to three categories: those in the end zone, those on the sidelines (in or out of bounds as a player runs, attempts to catch a pass or attempts to recover a fumble) and all questions regarding the number of players on the field. Head coaches tossed out yellow flags when they wanted a play reviewed.

The league competition committee, co-chaired by replay supporter Mike Holmgren and opponent George Young, ultimately will present a revised proposal for a vote. That committee will refine two existing plans, one from the league that reflects last summer’s rules and one from the Redskins, whose general manager, Charley Casserly, has worked tenaciously most of this decade to revive replay, refusing to allow the concept to disappear. The Redskins’ version would dramatically broaden replay’s scope to include all plays of possession (fumbles, interceptions, receptions) and even judgment calls such as pass interference.

The committee must decide how many challenges each team is allowed per half (a timeout is forfeited if the play is not reversed) and what should happen in the game’s final few minutes, when a reviewable play occurs but a team has no timeouts left.

To have replay without including all possession changes and pass-interference calls is ludicrous. Those categories generate the most controversy; there is no defensible reason to excuse them from review. This isn’t a matter of protecting the on-field officials; this is an attempt to get the game right. Unfortunately, to have replay passed, advocates may have to settle for a watered-down package this time around, with hopes the categories of replay can be enlarged once the system is shown to be feasible.

But even in a limited manner, the new replay would be faster (the ref has two minutes to make a decision) and more structured (each team likely would be allowed three challenges each per half) than the failed version.

No one is challenging the fact that an overwhelming majority of clubs already wants replay back; as many as 22 could be in favor even before the meetings start. But in the skewed world of the NFL, the majority doesn’t rule. Eight no votes would defeat the measure. So, it will be up to Tagliabue to find the 23rd vote, even if it currently resides in Jones’ back pocket.