Rethinking Replay
By Tim Benz

I was really fired up about having the chance to write this column. As a long time outspoken supporter of instant replay in the National Football League, I was set to pull a mea culpa and demand its immediate removal from the game. After watching the Steelers/Browns game at Heinz Field last month I realized that instant replay was now doing more harm than good. In that game, four controversial plays were brought into question: a Hines Ward touchdown/drop, a spot on a Ben Roethlisberger QB sneak (the Browns got robbed on that one), a Rashard Mendenhall fumble, and a ball placement after a Ryan Clark interception.

The fumble, touchdown, and interception spot were all debated and/or reviewed by replay. In each case the end result went against Pittsburgh. Ward lost his score. Mendenhall lost the ball. And Clark lost 18 yards in possession because of "intercepting momentum" that may or may not have carried him into the end zone.

But more importantly, each case also went against common sense. Ward clearly had possession until he bounced OUT of bounds. Mendenhall was down, but lying on top of a player. And Clark made no effort to get anything but a touchback. Prior to replay, only the most ardent Cleveland fan would've batted an eyelash at any of these results if the Steelers had gotten the call. In the pre-replay era most fans would've likely seen all those plays and easily rationalized: touchdown, down, and touchback.

But in the modern NFL, phrases such as "continuing action of the catch," "down by contact via a player," and "intercepting momentum" have crept into our football vocabulary (and more importantly, into the rule book) because of the influence of replay.

Gone are the days of knowing a catch or fumble when we see it. They are so far gone that I assume any receiver who goes to the ground to make a grab is going to have the catch overturned, even if he only scrapes one blade of grass with one inch of the ball.

The bottom line is the pendulum of football replay has swung too far in the wrong direction. It has morphed from a necessary eraser to correct on-field incompetence by the refs into a tool that does nothing but blur the lines of NFL common sense. Refs are now thinking too much and seeing too little.

So I was preparing to type up this article and pronounce myself as a sports columnist's versions of Arlen Specter. I was about to hop from one side of the replay aisle to the other. The problem was I happened to be watching Game 4 of the American League Championship Series between the Yankees and Angels while I was writing.

Bad move.

First there was a blown pick-off call at second base. Then a lousy call on a tag-up from third. Then Tim McClelland's now infamous botched run down decision. Factor in all the other disputed moments on the diamond this October, and now I'm thinking every call in every league should be reviewed after every play! Officiating in all sports has, indeed, gotten that bad.

So maybe I should drop the Arlen Specter approach, and perhaps I can take more of a Joe Lieberman stance. Consider me a Replay Independent. Replay should be scaled back in football. It should be expanded in baseball and basketball. And it should be virtually left alone in hockey.

And while my view on replay may be cloudy, I did just get my annual eye check up, and I passed with a good score. So I still feel I know a catch (or an out, Mr. McClelland) when I see one.

I just wish NFL refs and major league umpires still did too.