Instant Replay: The Answer to Tradition

In the current world of sports the mediators of the game do not make perfect calls, may have some bias, and could even be influenced by the Vegas spread (thank you Tim Donaghy). But these mediators, more commonly known as umpires and officials, will never be free of human error. It has always been part of every game since the beginning of every games existence. There has always been that give and take, and it has always been accepted that you will win a few and you will lose a few when it comes to human judgment. However, a few years ago the NFL and the NBA elected to use instant replay in order to rid the game of any human error in the most important of situations. The response to this at the time was mixed. Now that it is, without a doubt part of the game, most people do not give it a second thought anymore. An article by William Weinbaum entitled, "Froemming draws Pappas' ire, 35 years later" challenges this lack of concern once again, and teases to mind to find the boundaries between acceptable human error and the achievements of the game.

The article recounts a game of baseball between the Chicago Cubs and the San Diego Padres on September 2, 1972. Pitcher Milt Pappas was throwing a perfect game in the ninth inning with two out. Larry Stahl was at the plate and Bruce Froemming, seen to the right, was calling balls and strikes. With Pappas "one strike away from immortality" he threw a slider on the outside corner that he, his catcher, and many others watching thought was good enough to end the game. However, Fromming disagreed, and needless to say, he blew the perfect game with a walk on the next pitch.

Did this play need instant replay? Pappas may have deserved to achieve a feat that very few pitchers even get the chance to accomplish. If you ask me, the answer is no. Instant replay has no place in the game when it comes to personal accomplishment. This is not because the right call should not be made, but because human judgment has been the barometer of success in the game for all players looking to do something special. Sandy Koufax, one of the best pitchers of the century, threw four no hitters (Koufax is pictured here with one ball for each) and a perfect game without needing it. How many more could he have thrown if he had the bonus of instant replay on a check swing or a close strike in any of his one hitters? Football, which uses instant replay now, has the same questions. How many big catches and touchdowns in playoff situations should have been called the other way? There must be some quarterback or receiver out there that thinks instant replay could have gotten them a win if that one play was reversed. The fact of the matter is that judgment calls are part of the game. It is not fair to those who played without it to watch players benefit from it now. If instant replay results in the reverse of a call that results in a record should there be an asterisk next to it? An article by Steve Aschburner, called "Instant Success" even jests in regard to the many times officials go to the replay booth by saying, "Review every call in the last two minutes of every game in which the score is within one possession of the point spread or the over/under line, as determined by Las Vegas sports books at tipoff."

Instant replay does have many benefits. The game has become more accurate as a result, and the fans seem happier that the games they watch are not determined by a bad call, but something must be said about the tradition of the game. The game was invented and rules put into place taking into consideration human error. Go ahead and use instant replay when absolutely necessary, but lets not check down to technology after every controversial play. That is the easiest way to destroy the beauty and fluidity of the game loved by those who came before us.