The Large Discrepancy Between Instant Replay in American Sports and Rugby


Aug 16, 2013; Orchard Park, NY, USA;  NFL referee Tony Corrente (99) watches a TV during a instant replay in a game between the Buffalo Bills and the Minnesota Vikings at Ralph Wilson Stadium.  Photo Credit: Timothy T. Ludwig-USA TODAY Sports
Aug 16, 2013; Orchard Park, NY, USA; NFL referee Tony Corrente (99) watches a TV during a instant replay in a game between the Buffalo Bills and the Minnesota Vikings at Ralph Wilson Stadium. Photo Credit: Timothy T. Ludwig-USA TODAY Sports

One of the biggest difficulties in sports is ensuring the consistent accuracy of calls while at the same time maintaining the traditional speed of the game.

Different sports have their own unique way of reviewing questionable calls. In the NFL, each head coach is allotted two challenges per game, with a third challenge possible if both of the first turn out to be successful. In addition, reviews from the booth take place during the last two minutes of each half. Replays in the NBA are slightly different. With the exception of determining whether a player’s foot was on the line during a three point attempt–a play then is reviewed during the following timeout–controversial calls are only reviewed during the last two minutes of the game. Baseball has recently implemented a rule where managers are able to challenge one play during the course of a game–with a second awarded if the first is overturned.

While American fans generally don’t mind employing new instant replay techniques, as long as they don’t noticeably slow down the tempo of the game, people from other countries–particularly England and New Zealand–are not as fond of the pauses in action. It is interesting to note the cultural differences and how some countries shun any type of replay system and would prefer to have the initial call on the field stand. Opinions on how replay in Rugby should be conducted reflect the discrepancies between American and other sports.

Kieran Read, a member of the All Blacks rugby team in England, gave his outlook on television and its impact on the game; essentially, stating that more adjustments would turn the sport into something similar to American football, which, in context, is negatively portrayed.

“If that’s the way they are going to play it, it’s going to turn the game into NFL,” a disappointed Read asserts. “You want (the refs) to make the right decisions, so we have to use the technology that’s there, but sometimes it’s a bit fussy. They should make a decision and stick to it.”

Referring to rugby, Read also adds: “This game is great because it flows, the crowd stays in the game and there are no stoppages.”

While members and fans of other sports want a speedy, uninterrupted competition, groups associated with the NFL primarily focuses on making sure each call is correct. The NFL has firmly vowed to keep the replay system to maintain the integrity of the game. Instead of eliminating the system, the NFL plans on fine-tuning and minimizing the time it takes to review by bringing into play a centralized monitoring crew. These members watch from an exclusive room and alert the referees when the game requires a pause for further review. Since this has been implemented, officials no longer have to run to the booth, reducing the time of review drastically.

One explanation for why NFL fans don’t mind the instant replay system is the extreme level of implications riding on each play. Usually, coaches and members from the booth only employ the instant replay system on big gains that either produce first downs, touchdowns, or have the potential to change the momentum of the game.

With only 16 games in an NFL season, one missed call can be the difference between a team making the playoffs and possibly gaining some momentum to have a shot at winning the Super Bowl and the team not making it, subsequently, leading to coaches being fired, players being waived, and the revenue brought on by sponsors and attendance to significantly decrease.

Conversely, in the NBA, there are so many opportunities to score that one call, rarely is the deciding factor of a game.

In an ideal world, referees make every call with utmost precision; however, they are human and make mistakes, which is why a second means of observation is necessary. Hopefully, moving forward the question shifts from whether or not instant replay should be utilized to how we can employ the system in the most quick and efficient manner.

[fanmob id=”4f68f6ce-4170-45ca-b833-14f1b6abce76″]

Currently, the the NFL and rugby are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to stances on replays. Until some sort of middle ground is reached, both leagues will continue to receive intense criticism. Officials and fans of rugby should make it a point of emphasis to be less stubborn and more accepting to change before it comes a point where a crucial call, with possible heavy implications, is blown; and the current rules in place prevent it from being reviewed. The public uproar could potentially match, if not exceed, that of the botched call during the Green Bay Packers versus Seattle Seahawks game of the replacement referee era.

On the other hand, if the NFL doesn’t quickly condense the length of reviews, their brand could be severely damaged; and people might opt to view games from home even more than they already are as opposed to at the stadium.

Both of these scenarios are very serious and highly unlikely, but if both teams neglect to take action, they could very well take place. It is of paramount importance that both the NFL and English and New Zealand rugby leagues understand the importance and limitations of instant replay technologies.