Reviews through instant replay in sports

If you watch a game from any sport, there will certainly be a few calls that you need to see again to ensure that the call on the field is the correct one. But the referee or the umpire have to make a decision in the fray at the very moment it happened. They do the best they can, but they are only human. They are bound to make mistakes. Even if they know that they messed up and they missed one, they cannot go back in time and change what they call.
Unless… they could.

Wouldn’t the world of professional sports be different if they could? How would it be if the world of sports was absolutely correct, not subject to human error of perception?

If it was time efficient and cost effective, I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want these ideals to be a part of sports. Sports would be the most correct possible, and the excuse of blaming the officiating crew would wither away. “The better team won” would be far more common of a saying. At the least, the saying would be more believable.

Video review provides the key for this path to be taken. Instant replay provides the technology to do this.

Sports get closer to this absolute correctness every time video review is implemented… or, further integrated into the respective sport.

So… maybe, they can.

It’s all possible with video review.


It’s the Vancouver Olympics 2010, and Canada’s national pastime, men’s hockey, is in a qualifying match where the winner goes on while the loser is eliminated. Canada is facing Germany. This should be a fairly easy opponent for Canada. However, Canada struggled to find the net against another relatively ‘easy’ opponent in the Swiss, needing a shootout to defeat them. After a loss to the US, Canada needed to win a tiebreaker game just to make it to the quarterfinals!
In the second period, with the margin of the score at a minimum, Canada’s Shea Weber appeared to narrowly miss the net on a shot from the point. Not even the Canadian commentators hesitated, and play resumed until the next whistle. When the whistle stopped play, there seemed to be some commotion at the Canadian bench. TSN analyst, Pierre McGuire, who sat between the benches, announced something that seemed crazy (and everyone who knows of Pierre would not be phased by this, but this was even more wild). “I think that went in,” he said. Fans didn’t think anything of it, believing that McGuire, this time, may have finally fallen off the deep end. It sounded ridiculous, and most people just shook their head. But did his idea have merit? He then credited Martin Brodeur with calling the official over to request the referee go upstairs and take a look at the play.

They did so, and sure enough, upon replay, the puck appeared to sail directly through the net, unimpeded by mesh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9innRVXJQ&feature=PlayList&p=F923C382AADF9638&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=60

http://www.totalprosports.com/2010/02/24/canadas-shea-weber-blasts-a-puck-through-the-net-video

If video review wasn’t invented, that goal, which clearly goes through the net (above… consider the goalie was facing the shooter), doesn’t count. If video review wasn’t in commission, the possible ramification of this is that Canada doesn’t move on… and therefore doesn’t win the gold. It’s possible that Canada wouldn’t even place if that goal was missed, which it was originally when it happened. The possibility of anarchy and widespread death from rage and suicide may have occurred. But video review stepped up and saved the country’s potential collapse (now, bow your head to Pierre McGuire!).

I don’t know how else to say it, but video review, clearly, is paramount to sports!
And this given case is just another example. There are many just like it…


So, what is new media anyway? Well, as Wikipedia (which is a new media in itself…) tells us:

New media is a term meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the later part of the 20th century. Most technologies described as "new media" are digital, often having characteristics of being manipulated, networkable, dense, compressible, interactive and impartial. Some examples may be the Internet, websites, computer multimedia, computer games, CD-ROMS, and DVDs. New media is not television programs, feature films, magazines, books, or paper-based publications.

How does video review constitute as “new media” then? Well, it depends on the technology of instant replay, it is computerized and digital since it uses instant replay, and its interactive component is a relatively new concept considering technology has just recently allowed its inclusion into the sports world.

To use video review, the technology of instant replay has to be used. In the 1950s, Hockey Night In Canada had a version of replay, but the CBC prohibited use. It was four years before the first Superbowl that marked the first instant replay ever executed in a game. It was December 7th, 1963, during an Army / Navy football game in Philadelphia. Television director Tony Verna directed the first replay through a variety of “logistical nightmares” (Verna said it was for NBC; Wikipedia, though, gives credit to CBS ). Rollie Stitchweh, Army’s quarterback, was the improbable figure who was featured in the first replay. “Ladies and gentlemen, Army has not scored again,” had to be announced by NBC’s Lindsay Nelson before airing the replay. Slow-motion replay was inaugurated a few years later by ABC.

The technology of instant replay stemmed from the simplicity of the photo finish. Photo finish photos begun with hand-cranked photos, but even today, they are still used at virtually every racing circuit. Despite the amount of video used in sports today, a photo is still considered the most important evidence in selecting the winner in racing. Although the technology was available earlier, the first photo finish was in 1946. It made its official debut at Flemington racetrack. Before the photo finish was introduced, horses would have to run a “dead heat”, meaning they would have to run a whole separate race to decide the winner.

















http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/asset/cms/Champions/photo_finish_sn20211_000.pdf

The less errors by officiating crews holds better ramifications for everyone. Video review would mean lessened ability to blame the officiating crew, which in turn will alleviate the pressure on the officials so they are able to do a better job. It will have a profound effect on officials, for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that officials now will be more on top of their game knowing their call can be reversed, seeing as they may not be as afraid to be wrong because they can utilize the video review if they are unsure of their calls. The second, more likely possibility, is that they will be more focused to not getting proved wrong. Ashley Harkelroad, a competitor in the first ever tennis match which used video review, said of the linemen, “They’re probably going to be on their best behavior with that thing now going on,” she said to the Associated Press. “Sometimes maybe they get a little lazy. They do call bad line calls. But they know that this thing’s going on, and they don’t want to mess up.”

With an increase of correct calls, the coaches will be allowed to better tune their energy to helping their team by actually coaching, rather than tormenting the officials.

The players themselves will also benefit from video review, considering they can better direct their animosity of the game on to their opponents, rather than on the officials. “It takes a lot of pressure off,” said Jamea Jackson to the Associated Press. Jackson is the women who made the first challenge of the WTA (on Harkelroad’s shot). “You don’t get so angry. If you think a call is incorrect, you don’t spend extra games thinking about it (you can just find out if the call is correct right then and there).”

I’ll explain a few examples of sports which utilize video review and how it is employed:
• For hockey, it’s a part of the NHL and the Olympics when it comes to reviewing goals.
• For football, it’s a part of both the NFL and CFL. First entered into the NFL in 1986, replay is used for questionable on-field calls, such as passes which may be incomplete or whether the player got more yards on the play than he was given credit for.
o Video review cannot be used for penalties.
o Video review must be used before the start of the next play initiates.
o Video review also cannot be used for plays which the referee has blown dead.


(Ed Hochuli, NFL official knows all about this rule after mistakenly blowing the whistle in San Diego after what he believed to be Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler throwing the ball away. Really, he had fumbled it. But since Hochuli blew the play dead, it wasn’t a challengeable play. Once he blew the whistle, he could not change it… although he knew he made an error. This play was heavily scrutinized as this call led to a Broncos touchdown drive… to comeback from seven down and win )
• For basketball, video review is only used for last second shots to see if the player actually got the shot off before the clock hits 0:00. As well as last second shots, it is used to see whether or not a shot is a three-point field goal or only a two (if the player has a foot on the arc. If they do, the shot is only worth two  http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1285199300065315868hUWcyC).

o The NBA has clocks installed directly behind each basket to let the players know the time remaining on the shotclock and gameclock (see images… the top number is the gameclock, bottom is the shotclock, which isn’t lit; the left image shows the clock at 01.1. while the right image shows the clock at 1.0 when Mavericks Forward Dirk Nowitzki released ball. This frame of Garnett is slightly too early to tell his release for sure).
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQuMWoQGBY shows Lebron James making two buckets, the last of which shows the ball still in his hand when the clock ticks away.


• It’s used in tennis for in and out challenges by players. Tennis uses a system called Hawk Eye that determines whether a ball is in or out. In my opinion, tennis is the most accurate game called in the sporting world, due to this Hawk Eye replay. It shows if the ball is in or out, virtually whenever the player wants to take another look at the call.
• In swimming, it is not commonly used, but it was confirmed by video review that Michael Phelps hit the finish line first in the Beijing Olympics, millimeters ahead of his Australian opponent, thereby securing his record eighth gold medal.


http://thdonline.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/phelps5.jpg

• As of September 3, 2010, John Quo Pacar of The Associated Press reported that the MLB had decided to use video review for homeruns. “Technology has advanced to the point where they feel comfortable using cameras.”
Jimmie Lee Solomon, Major League Baseball's executive vice president of baseball operations, told the AP, ‘You cannot ignore the technology we have. When you can slow a picture down, (we can see everything… including whether it is a homerun or not).’”
o Actually, instant replay in baseball was included in Time Magazine's Best Inventions of 2008.
o September 3rd, Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez (left) points to the crowd taunting the umpire into the homerun call, which happened soon thereafter (right).




IMPLEMENTATION

o If you watch any football game, there will certainly be a few calls that you need to see a replay of to ensure if the call on the field is the correct one. In the NFL, when either coach sees a call which they deem to be wrong, he will opt to challenge the play. Each coach receives two challenges per game, and he may use the challenges as he wants (unless under two minutes to play in the half, in which cases a review comes from officials upstairs; and as long as his team has atleast one timeout remaining). When wanting to challenge a play, a coach must throw their red challenge flag onto the field before the next snap (like John Fox is about to do below). If it`s too late, or the officials do not see the flag, the play cannot be reviewed. So the coach can only challenge a play in the limited time before the next snap. That is why you`ll often see teams hustle to the line and snap the ball quickly and run a nothing play, just so the previous call cannot be challenged. If the coach uses a challenge and is wrong— the call on the field stands— a timeout is revoked from his team. If the team gets it right, they are not charged a timeout, but they don’t get the privilege of using that challenge again, even if they were right. This is in effect to preserve the speed of the game, but doesn’t give bonuses for being right to have the ability to challenge again. So, if one team is getting slighted by an official repeatedly, there is no method to the NFL’s challenge policy.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/mag/blog/FoxRedFlag.jpg
o However, WTA tennis does have a method for this. Granted their challenges last about seven seconds (when an NFL challenge takes about three minutes total), but in March 2008, WTA challenge rules were agreed upon: a player can make up to three unsuccessful challenges per set, of which is a reasonable limit considering if you’re right, you can keep challenging the umpires’ call…
“It’s really quick,” said Jamea Jackson, the tennis player who was the guinea pig of the challenge invention in tennis. “I remember people were complaining about maybe it throwing off the timing and rhythm of the match, but it didn’t do anything like that at all.”
o The method of a player challenge is as follows: when a player disagrees with the call and challenges the play, the chair umpire announces “So-and-So has challenged the call.” The Official Review shows the play on the jumbotron, using about a Nintendo 64 or Sony PlayStation 1 video game-type graphic. It shows the ball landing where it really landed (according to Hawk Eye), leaving an imprint. After the ball has bounced, at the bottom of the screen is the verdict. Either IN or OUT is displayed at the bottom of the screen  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJWWXMktRK4
If any part of the ball touches line, it is ruled in.


In most other sports, a review doesn’t cost anything, but there isn’t the formal option to review like in football and tennis. The referee has to be talked into reviewing the play (most commonly after conferring with other officials, often prompted first by coaches and players, OR BY PIERRE MAGUIRE) to ensure that it is a reasonable play to review.
o In the NHL, some prodding of the officials may be needed, but they are mostly willing to look upstairs when asked. Often the most effective camera angle is the overhead angle
o Islanders forward Miroslav Satan, clearly, puts it past the outstretched Henrik Lundqvist.



o In the MLB, all hits that are even close to being in question as a homerun are automatically reviewed.
o As is in the NBA, where any shots close to the buzzer at the end of the quarter are reviewed automatically.

Bryon MacDonald, a renowned swimming commentator for the CBC has this to say regarding video review: “To make TV and/or to mandate cameras to cover all the angles you would need a load [of cameras in place].”
For swimming, it is especially the case as most of the infractions happen underwater. “You would need likely two per lane to get all the right angles, and then another one or two on top of each lane,” he explains.
“In total, it’s way, way too expensive.”
“Therein lies the trouble with the video review,” says MacDonald, who was an Olympic swimmer himself, and then a coach. “That’s why it can’t be used without a ton of cameras.”
This point is not limited to swimming of course. Any sport needs plenty of cameras to make full use of video review. And plenty of cameras cost plenty of dollars…
So, smaller sports without the tv funding and cameras like the NFL has, will be slower to take on the trend of video review, simply because they don’t have the resources. As is the case with junior or minor leagues.
The four major leagues in North America (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL) have the means necessary to boost their use of video review.

CONCLUSION

Why does the process of getting the call right have to be limited— limited to use for questionable goals, challenges, or buzzer-beater shots?

Bud Selig, Commissioner of the MLB, isn’t as willing as I am to let video review expand farther into the parameters of his sport, despite the potential. He has no intention of expanding it further."My opposition to unlimited instant replay is still very much in play,” he told mlb.com reporter Mark Newman. “I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now by doing things the way we did it," Selig credits himself and a close-knit circle. "But when you look at the technology we now have, like anything else in life there are times when you need to make an adjustment."

So really, it’s just a matter of time for another adjustment to take place until we delve deeper into technologies ever-expanding boundaries. And perhaps Selig is just an old-fashioned conservative, anyway. But seriously, this mindset doesn’t help video review expand… or allow sports to be increasingly devoid of errors.
Arlen Kantarian, the U.S. Tennis Association’s chief executive for professional tennis said of the video review in the sport to the AP: “So far there’s 100 percent support, which is not always the case with a rule change for a game that has been around for 100 years,” said. “To be honest, we expected a little more controversy at first.”

What are the next steps in sports to utilize video review?

It varies across sport, obviously. Getting the amount of cameras necessary to capture all the angles is a good start for any sport or sporting league. But this technology costs money, and I don’t see video review ever coming to your local arena. But I mean for professional sports, where there is a price and the correct call is valued.

o For basketball, shots at the end of the shot clock I expect to be reviewed.
o Also, why can’t out of bounds calls get looked at? There is virtually no way for the officials to really tell who touches the ball last on bang-bang plays before it goes out of bounds.
o I never expect video to be used to call fouls or travelling. The line has to be drawn there. But for disciplinary purposes after the game, it will be continued to be used.
o For football, I can envision a revision of the system where, like tennis, if you get the challenge correct, you get to re-use them. But the officials are pretty good, and I don’t know if this will be necessary.
o Hockey is a case that may have reached the peak of video review. Obviously the NHL uses instant replay to look at penalties for suspensions, but in the games themselves, I cannot see a big area where video review can be implemented. Penalties on the fly though I highly doubt will ever be subject to review (off the fly for suspensions, though, it is already being used). Of course, the NHL uses it to see deflections of goals and who gets credit for the goal.
o It’s possible that video review will be used in the future to see if a puck is deflected on the way out of play, which may result in a penalty if done by a team in their own zone. Icing calls are also possible to become subjects of review, though it’s unlikely that they are a big enough deal to check.
o For baseball, foul balls will be the next thing to checked. Who knows what will follow…

Baseball, though, brings up an interesting case. As in tennis, its calls are black and white; either the umpire gets it right or wrong. It is pondered whether baseball should use video review for the strikezone, as well as calls on the basepads… which would eliminate the need for an umpire altogether. The argument to this is the speed of the game, which some people do not believe the technology can keep up with, as well as the human element of error being traditionally apart of the sport. The latter argument though, it is really thoughtless… why would you call it wrong when you can call it right?

(mlb.com)

Newman’s article found on MLB.com, explains TIME magazine’s inclusion of MLB’s creation of video review in their Greatest Inventions of 2008. "Replay allows teams to contest controversial home run calls for the first time," the magazine wrote. "This may add minutes to a game that already suffers from slowness, but that's a small price to pay for making the correct call."

This is what I’m getting at. Video review allows sports to be more correct, and TIME is saying that a bit of time is a small price to pay to get the call right (oddly and awkwardly enough, TIME saying ‘time’). Their point is utmost valid.

Video review, clearly, simply makes the games more correct.




SOURCES:
http://www.totalprosports.com/2010/02/24/canadas-shea-weber-blasts-a-puck-through-the-net-video/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay_in_American_and_Canadian_football
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media
INSTANT REPLAY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFkY-ZjR5s
Quo Pacar, John. The Associated Press. Baseball to Start Using Instant Replay Thursday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAtvbhtkdcA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQuMWoQGBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJWWXMktRK4
Newman, Mark. Replay tabbed as a top invention of '08. mlb.com. Accessed March 3, 2010. Accessed from http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/replay/index.jsp
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/994236/the_history_of_instant_replay_in_sports.html?cat
http://digg.com/tech_news/You_can_NOT_be_serious_Instant_replay_begins
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/11964816/
Olney, Buster. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3402787&name=olney_buster&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3402787%26name%3dolney_buster
Associated Press. You can NOT be serious! Instant replay begins. Written March 22, 2006. Accessed from http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/11964816/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay#Tennis