Should we implement instant replay?
It’s a question making the rounds of high schools across the nation, being asked throughout gymnasiums, ice hockey arenas, football stadiums and baseball fields.
Of course, high school competitors continue to emulate the college and professional ranks. How else would you explain the tattoos, pointing to the sky, flying chest bumps, talking in the third person, shaved heads and the thanking of the Lord that we experience so much of today?
So why not replay?
A recent article in a publication of the National Federation of State High School Associations perused the matter after boys and girls basketball games in three states experienced controversial endings in championship games the past season. Fairly intense media coverage offered replays that sparked sentiment toward using video evidence to ultimately decide close or controversial calls, although the NFSH’s basketball rules committee voted down all proposals in a spring meeting.
Is it me or does this trigger more questions than “Jeopardy!”?
First off, the idea of incorporating video to aid rulings in high school games is enticing. How many times have you sat in the stands or stood along a sideline and thought to yourself: “Man, that was the worst call I’ve ever seen and you just cheated a great bunch of kids”?
All of us, right?
But how practical would it be?
What about the money? Local high school coaches practically have to use their firstborns as collateral to get a new box of baseballs.
What about the numbers? The NFL has 32 teams. Colorado alone has 285 football programs in a state membership association that is closing in on 350 sanctioned schools.
What about the manpower? Prep sports officials’ organizations continue to beg for candidates, but, hey, what’s another thousand or so?
Which part of the season would be eligible? The feeling is to initially play with it at championship time, but when did the regular season and earlier postseason rounds suddenly turn insignificant?
Which sport would use it? Wrestling? Swimming? Field hockey? Or just football and basketball to begin?
Which play or point in the contest is fair game?
Do we really want our officials sticking their heads into small black tents or skating over to the dasher boards to pick up the phone and see what someone in the nosebleed section is sure they saw better?
How much time would be allotted? In case you haven’t noticed, prep events on TV already take longer than waiting in line at the post office near the holidays.
Would something like this actually work? Do we have to have proof “that overturns the call on the field” or just common sense? Or is it “inconclusive” and, as a result, pointless?
Haven’t you watched a replay that didn’t result in an overturned a call and found yourself wondering what in the heck was going on?
Do we all but ensure improved opportunity at getting correct calls or settle for the human eye as part of the learning experience for young people that are offered in high school sports? Fact: Not everything goes your way, is correct or makes sense. These aren’t video games.
And do we really want any more cameras out there than we have now?
Me? I’d settle for changing the rule that doesn’t allow schoolboy footballers to return a kick that crosses the goal line. It’s ridiculous. A shot clock in basketball would make more sense than replay, but the cost and widespread changeover for something such as that is stifling.
If you disagree, you can always replay this column.
Neil H. Devlin: 303-954-1714 or ndevlin@denverpost.com
