A few years ago, the National Football League also attempted the use of television replays to resolve gray areas during games. However, they were unsuccessful for the following reasons.
First, the choice of which camera angle was discretionary, and therefore sometimes inconclusive. With over a dozen camera angles to choose from, they had to rely on just one, and if it didn’t show the action they were looking for, or something obscured the camera’s view, then it was useless. Secondly, it slowed down the game. This became particularly irksome during playoffs, when fans were looking for more action. Instead of helping, technology instead became a cumbersome millstone around the necks of officials.
When should replays be used to resolve game situations? Generally, conflict arises when two actions are deemed to take place simultaneously: time elapsing and making an attempt at the goal or committing a violation. This may be the only situation when a video replay may conclusively prove whether or not a buzzer beater went in in time or not. Consider also that video replays are–as a matter of course– used to settle matters in horse racing and other sports.
I recall one of the very first games of the MBA, wherein Eugene Quilban sank a disputed running jumper at the buzzer to win the Davao Eagles’ first game over the Pasig-Rizal Pirates. The win was upheld, and a review of the tape proved that Quilban had released the ball with three-tenths of a second remaining.
A similar situation occurred in the NCAA game between San Beda College and the University of Perpetual Help-Rizal two weeks ago. In overtime, UPHR seemingly scored the winning basket at the buzzer. The basket was counted, although it appeared on the replay that the ball had not yet been released when time expired.
There are other situations, of course, when replays should be useful: goal-tending, offensive vs defensive fouls, technical foul calls, etc. However, overuse of this tool would mean a lack of trust in live game officials.
Of course, the reason we have referees is to control the flow of a game and maintain order. However, if a league decides it would help in deciding the outcomes of games if referees were assisted by video. After all, televised games are surrounded by cameras. Unfortunately, local games coverors generally supply only one or two recorders for slow-motion replays. Thus, any plays for review would be limited to the master shot (usually the camera at a high angle towards the middle of the playing area) and a floor shot (cameras at either end of the court or at the middle). Therefore, if a player drove in from the side opposite the camera, automatically, other players would block the camera’s view.
All professional leagues have a system of review to check on their officials’ performance. The MBA, to its credit, took things a step further by actually implementing a rule wherein a player could be punished for an infraction not spotted by game officials. The league had a rule wherein you could be suspended for even attempting to strike another player, whether you made contact or not. A few players were caught on video doing this, after the fact, and summarily punished.
The debate continues: should sports leagues allow the use of slow-motion replays to determine the outcome? It would seem wise to do so if the outcome of the game were in any doubt. Then again, the responsibility to actually determine doubt falls into whose hands? Should it be with the referees or technical officials, or the teams playing?
I would think one thing is certain. Leagues should institute a maximum number of times that slow-mo replays should be allowed, lest it slow down the game and render it unpalatable to viewers. That way, they could preserve the pace of sport, which is what thrills audiences in the first place.