The "instant replay" conversation is the hottest camera-based debate in sports that doesn't involve Rex Ryan and his wife's feet. To many, the idea that baseball and soccer still have minimal use of instant replay is as mind-boggling as America's love for Ke$ha's music, if that can be called music. While tennis creates full 3-D renderings of its court to see where the ball hit (does anyone know how this is done, by the way?), soccer still can't just look at a TV monitor.
The argument is on the minds of sports fans everywhere — not just for its scope but also its effect on the game. Take these three examples:
1. Oct. 9, 2009: In Game 2 of the Divisional Series between the New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins, Joe Mauer hit a liner up the left-field line that would have been a sure double had it been correctly called fair. Instead, the ball was called foul and, despite still singling later in the at-bat, Mauer was stranded at third as the potential go-ahead run after a pair of singles. The Yankees went on to take the game and sweep the series two nights later.
2. Nov. 8, 2009: In a last-chance playoff for one of the final World Cup spots, France and Ireland were tied in extra time. Thierry Henry set up William Gallas for the game-winning goal, but he controlled the ball with his hand in the process. The handball was not seen, and France moved on to the World Cup — where the squad would subsequently implode — while Ireland was denied what would have been its fourth World Cup berth of all time.
3. Dec. 2, 2010: Qatar was selected over the more deserving bids of the United States and Australia to host the 2022 World Cup (Wait … this has nothing to do with replay and is purely based on the fact that FIFA is a bunch of corrupt, bribe-accepting p*@%#s? My bad.)
In each case, the situation could have been remedied quite easily by replay if either sport was open to it. But both Bud Selig and Sepp Blatter — the heads of the respective organizations — continue to live in the past.
And honestly, I'm with them. Unlike other sports that have adapted to replay, both soccer and baseball rely on their rich histories, histories that would be corrupted by the further implementation of replay.
We'll start with soccer. What separates association football from the rest of the sports world is its constant flow. There are no TV timeouts; you don't have to watch the same Bud Light commercial 50 times over the course of a single game. It's 45 minutes of play, a short break and then another 45 minutes. The negative of stopping the game for video reviews more than outweighs the benefits of adding it.
Baseball is a bit more unclear. While some replay already exists, any additions would be a detriment to the culture of the sport. While technology could get you a "perfect" strike zone, figuring out an umpire's strike zone and framing pitches are both part of the art of the game. Personally, growing up as a catcher, I was taught to frame almost before I learned how to properly block a ball in the dirt. The loss of such bush-league tactics would definitely hurt the game.
Of course, both sports have already begun to slowly integrate replay into the game. Soccer is looking into goal-line technology that would be used only to see if a ball crossed the plane of the goal, while baseball already can review home runs.
While its use will likely continue to spread, it is up to us fans to eventually take a stand. Machines are already taking our jobs; we don't need them taking our sports, too.
