I remember the replay years. They were long.
That's why the NFL dumped replay the first time. The games became longer than Jay Leno's jaw. Old referees on the field yielded to older referees in the booth, who took forever to decide the replay was "inconclusive."
Babies were born, nations toppled, mountains crumbled to the sea. Tick, tick, tick. Then, finally: "On further review, the play stands."
On further review, I'd forgotten what they were further reviewing. Games took three and a half hours. I could think of some good things to do with three and a half hours: Watch The Godfather, take a three-hour tour on the S.S. Minnow, learn German phrases from Katarina Witt. But not watch football.
The last year of replay was 1991. The NFL says in that year, 90 calls were reversed, out of more than 1,000. Of the 90, 12 were reversed incorrectly. What do we do about those replays? Replay them?
Replay sounds great. Who wouldn't want a perpetual second chance? I know a few marriages that wouldn't have happened. I know a few columns that wouldn't have been written. On further review, I want that column back.
I'd replay the purchase of my first car. It was a 1974 Chevy Vega. Every month, it guzzled half the Middle East. It was the worst American-made car in the history of pistons. On further review, it was a joke.
I'd replay my four frat-boy years of undergraduate education. Man, would I ever. If I knew then what I know now . . .
Better technology
"We have the technology to do it better now," you say. Sure, and we have the technology to blow up the world and make a better talking horse than Mr. Ed.
"But the officiating. It stinks. It's criminal. No wonder the referees wear stripes."
Agreed. But tell me this: How happy would you be if the participants were as right in their thought and execution as the refs are in theirs? If only the coaches and players were as efficient as they expect the zebras to be.
NFL referees make the right call 95 percent of the time. You'd probably take a receiver who runs perfect routes 95 percent of the time, or a lineman who grades 95 percent every week of his career. Is there a quarterback out there making the right read nine times out of 10? On further review, wouldn't it have been great if Bruce Coslet decided not to kick a field goal on fourth down from the Green Bay 1?
Replay is like the need for a college football playoff, or whether quasi-amateur jocks should be paid. Everybody screams yes, but nobody has a workable plan.
And sorry, the Geritol-ic in the Pittsburgh-Detroit game who thought "tails" sounded like "heads" wouldn't have been saved by instant replay.
105 working refs
The NFL doesn't need replay. It needs better refs.
On any given Sunday (to coin a phrase), 105 refs are working NFL games. You mean to tell me the world's most powerful sports league, one that negotiates mind-blowing TV deals every several years, can't find 105 men to call a coin toss properly?
It can't find 105 people to apply common sense to an interference call after a Hail Mary pass into the end zone? It can't find 105 sets of eyes that could plainly see the only thing over the goal line was Vinny Testaverde's helmet?
C'mon.
Refs blow calls. It happens all the time. Get over it. It evens out. Witness the New York Jets. This year, Testaverde scores a phantom TD, and the Jets beat Seattle. Last year, Detroit cornerback Bryant Westbrook gets a phantom interception, and the Lions beat the Jets. The people who want replay are the people most recently jobbed by a call. I didn't hear Jets coach Bill Parcells screaming for it last Sunday.
Somehow, the NFL survived six decades without Big Brother in the booth. More humans means more human error.
The games were good before replay. Also, shorter.
Enquirer columnist Paul Daugherty welcomes your comments at 768-8454.
BENGALS PAGE
DAUGHERTY ARCHIVE
