Replay it Again, Sam

So . . . there's been a lot of discussion in recent weeks about instant replay in sports. This week the hubbub was regarding a goal that was not called a goal in the England-Germany match, about which the German goalkeeper later bragged that he had fooled the referee. Other incidents that have led to the call for greater use of instant replay were a spoiled perfect game in a Major League Baseball when the first-base umpire erroneously called the 27th batter safe at first, and the extensive mis-use of instant replay in the NBA finals.

What it boils down to is how we want to define the parameters of the game. In a sense, it is the same as the best decision/right decision distinction I made last week, but just a little altered. Do we want the absolutely right decision every time (realistically unattainable), or the best decision human judgment, in real time, can provide? Historically leagues have opted for the latter (the reason for which appears to be trepidation that their referees/umpires will be proven to be horrible), but instant replay has made inroads in the NFL and NBA.

The latter provided a comical example in the NBA finals this year. Instant replay in the NBA is allowed only to verify certain judgment calls (e.g. was it a 2 or 3-point shot, was a shot made before time expired, who should retain possession after the ball is out of bounds). In the fourth quarter of game 3 of the finals, the refs used instant replay three times in quick succession. In one of the instances, they could see that a Boston player had fouled a Laker, but couldn't call the foul because foul calls aren't reviewable, and because the foul caused the Laker to tip the ball out of bounds, Boston got possession. So the very tool that was intended to help make correct calls forced the refs to make the absolute wrong one.

Look, if bad calls are part of the game, then that is just subsumed in the notions of winning and losing. If Maradona can knock a ball in with his hand and have it count, it counts, and that's part of the game - it's not cheating. If he had been caught, there would have been a penalty, and that was a risk he took. Ultimately, as I covered a while ago, the winner of the game is not necessarily the best team, they're just the team that happened to have won.

Using instant replay is something I'm all for, but I don't think for a second that it will somehow stop the bending or breaking of the rules. Players will just have to be more creative in how they do it. I disagree with the notion that the player answers to a higher authority, that of sportsmanship or the greater glory of the game. A player is charged with and rewarded for winning the game for his team. If a player does that best by breaking the rules (e.g. a hockey goon like John Kordic, a NBA flopper like Anderson Varejao, or a juicer like Barry Bonds), they still add value to their team. They may be punished, but if they help create wins they are useful. Until there is punishment that outweighs the benefit of cheating, it makes sense to take advantage of shortcomings. Shortcomings like refs who can't possibly see all activity with 100% accuracy.