How About 'Instant Replay' To Settle Disputed Penalties?

HOW ABOUT ‘INSTANT REPLAY’ TO SETTLE DISPUTED PENALTIES?

By Wayne DeNeff

It sounded like a wild idea at first.

But, after thinking about it, maybe the football fan had an idea worth exploring when he suggested that the Big Ten adopt “instant replay” to settle the numerous gripes about officiating which seem to be increasing from one year to the next.

“Listen,” he said, “they do it in horse racing. If there’s a charge of foul, the stewards quickly review the film and come up with an answer. It happens every day.”

It’s obvious right from the start there would be a time delay and the fans wouldn’t like that, much less the players and the coaches.

But it wouldn’t have to be much of a delay because of modern technology, the fan explained.

Think of all the Monday complaints “instant replay” would eliminate. The Monday complaints follow the coaches’ film reviews on Sunday when the game is meticulously examined to evaluate each player’s performance. Officiating errors are there, too, for one and all to see.

Trouble started early in the Big Ten this fall.

After Illinois was beaten, 19-18, in the opener by Washington State, Illini Coach James Valek charged the officials erred in calling a penalty on one of his players. The infraction was called on a play in which WSU missed a try for the winning field goal. After the penalty was marched off, the Cougar kicked the ball through the uprights for the one-point margin late in the game.

“It’s a shame,” said Valek, “a game has to be decided in the clutch by an official’s decision. We have looked at the film over and over and I don’t see how he could call holding….”

Iowa Coach Ray Nagel was up in arms about the officiating in the Hawkeyes’ narrow losses to Wisconsin (23-17) and Purdue (35-31).

Nagel was particularly upset about a safety call which gave the Badgers possession of the ball and an illegal use of hands penalty which deprived the Hawkeye of a touchdown run against Purdue.

“One question we should examine is what is the role of an official in a game,” said Nagel. “I feel they play too big a role.

“Sometimes they call fouls when they’re not there. We’ve had fouls called against us the last two games which simply were not there.”

Last Monday, it was Coach Duffy Daugherty of Michigan State who had some pretty blunt words about the officiating in the Spartans’ 19-18 loss to Iowa.

“There was no infraction of the rules. It was absolutely legal play,” said Daugherty after he had seen films of an MSU touchdown which was called back because the officials said there was an illegal receiver downfield.

“One guard went out and blocked only two yards downfield and was not deep enough into Iowa territory to be declared an illegal receiver,” said Daugherty.

The officials may have lost the line of scrimmage which they apparently did when a similar penalty was called on Michigan in its loss to Michigan State.

Films show no illegal receiver downfield, according to Michigan coaches.

Michigan Coach Bo Schembechler drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the Purdue game when he protested Michigan was wrongly penalized on the substitution rule.

It appeared the officials erred when they made the call against Michigan, thinking that a Wolverine who had stayed behind to help an injured teammate off the field, was an illegal third substitute.

Funny thing was that many of the fans didn’t think Schembechler was complaining about the call for an illegal substitution.

They thought he was arguing about a pass which was ruled complete even though the Purdue player had knocked down a Wolverine defender and then caught the ball on the bounce.

Obviously, officiating is a mighty tough job and a thankless job and many of the respected businessmen who make up the Big Ten officiating corps must at times wonder why they ever got involved.

But they do it primarily for the love of the game which many of them have played with distinction. They do it, too, because they want to stay close to the activity which has meant so much to them throughout their lives.

One sometimes wonders whether human frailty is too great for the giant emotions which football creates.

The fan who suggested “instant replay” has in mind the elimination of human error through quick review and “stop action.”

There probably are a number of objections to such a setup and it isn’t hard to imagine that it could be quite costly—cameras, screens, officials in the pressbox. But it still might be worth some discussion in view of the continuing criticism of the present system.

Naturally, there would have to be some pretty strict ground rules.

Absolute authority for the running of the game must be kept in the hands of neutral officials.

Every play could not be called for examination and every coach’s whim or objections could not be aired. Perhaps five-yard penalties should not be subject for review.

But “instant replay” for some of the game-changing 15-yard penalties might provide a precise answer.