Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 25, 2009
An Argument for Replay

Paul Sullivan uses Game 7 of the 1987 World Series to make a case for instant replay to help with controversial decisions. His best argument, however, comes from the 2009 Super Bowl:

Wasn't it better to know for sure that Santonio Holmes made that incredible catch to win the game? Will anyone remember there was a delay to review the tape?

OF COURSE NOT! They'll remember the play!

Imagine if the ref said "No Catch!"

The Arizona Cardinals would have won the Super Bowl.
And anyone who mentions that would say "Well, the Steelers actually did."

The home runs replays seem to work well. If people get used to that, eventually they'll want other close calls looked at in more detail.


Posted by David Pinto at 04:39 PM | Rules | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Replay cuts both ways, how is God's name could they not review the last "fumble" by Warner?

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2009 08:33 PM

vLdyap cjsvuejidfqq, [url=http://gyixfhnjivhm.com/]gyixfhnjivhm[/url], [link=http://wiqwklhowzkj.com/]wiqwklhowzkj[/link], http://mpwfuugmlkac.com/

Posted by: rppdkwwum at February 25, 2009 08:34 PM

I hate replay in baseball. It's too slow and they will still screw up.

I just fear a day when every call is "challengable" by the manager with a buzzer in the dugout. It's a slippery slope.

Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2009 09:13 PM

The Steelers would have kicked a field goal on 4th down to tie the game. There was enough time left as witnessed by Cards having a few plays at the end.

Posted by: Bob S at February 25, 2009 10:18 PM

Bob S... so you would rather have the call blown?

Posted by: Sully at February 26, 2009 02:09 AM

Bob S... so you would rather have the call blown?

Posted by: Sully at February 26, 2009 02:09 AM

Bob S... so you would rather have the call blown?

Posted by: Sully at February 26, 2009 02:09 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?