We have lost the plot with instant replay in professional sports
Anything that requires interpretation or a subjective opinion should not be up for replay review. Make the call and stick with it.
This is going to be a quick one, just because I can not get this out of my mind. But we really need to talk about instant replay in sports.
There is a place for it, and I would argue there is a need for it. Especially since we have the technology to (in theory) make it work. But somewhere along the lines we have lost the plot on what it supposed to do, why it exists, and how it is supposed to work.
The NHL’s ongoing situation with goalie interference reviews is the perfect example of this.
Nobody in the NHL is happy with the way the process is working this season. Goalies and head coaches are consistently baffled by it. Fans are growing frustrated with it. Every time a goalie interference challenge is initiated every broadcast is a chorus of people saying, “well, nobody actually knows what goalie interference is anymore” and then being baffled when the final decision is made.
This is a problem. Whether it is an actual problem or just a perceived problem does not matter. It is still a problem. If you have created an environment where so many people involved in the sport, either as an active participant or an observer, are this confused by the process and the results then you have simply not done a good enough job implementing it.
I am also not sure there is ever going to be a way that you can fix it.
When the NHL first started reviewing for goalie interference I do think it worked reasonably well, and coaches were generally successful with how they were using it. At least to some degree. They were consistently coming in at over 50 percent in terms of their challenge success rate, and while that may not be great, it was at least on the positive side of the ledger.
This season, however, everything has been thrown into chaos. The league-wide success rate on goalie interference challenges has dropped into the low 30 percent range, while there seems to be more frustration than ever before with the process. Despite this, the NHL as a league continues to plug its fingers in its ears and scream that everything is fine.
It is not fine, and at some point a really important game (or playoff series) is going to swing on one of these calls and the league is going to have to own whatever comes from it.
There is a very simple and obvious solution to this: Anything that is a judgement call, or anything that is open to interpretation or somebody’s opinion, should not be up for replay review.
Make the call on the ice, or the court, or the field, and stick with it.
Goalie interference is one of those plays that is open for interpretation.
Replay review was put in place to fix obviously bad calls and black-and-white plays that should not have a debate around them.
Did the football player get two feet down in bounds. Did the puck entirely cross the goal line. Is it a fair ball or a foul ball. Obviously wrong calls and misapplication of rules. Nothing else.
In the overwhelming majority of plays that fall under categories like this there is usually very little room for debate. Whether the call benefits your team or not, most people will generally agree on the result.
It is the 100 drunk guys in a bar argument. If 100 drunk guys in a bar all agree that the call is wrong, then you change it. If they do not agree, it is not that obvious. You are never, ever going to get that on judgement calls.
Think about what plays in the NFL cause the most uproar when it comes to replay decisions.
It is rarely “did he get two feet in bounds” or “did the football cross the goal-line.”
It is almost always the more subjective, “did he maintain possession through the catch,” or “did he make another football move before he dropped the ball.”
It is always the more subjective aspects of the play.
There is a reason the NFL quickly dumped the idea of making pass interference a reviewable play. It was because there was no standard to it or consistency with it, and nobody was happy with how it was working.
This is the problem with subjective plays and rules going to replay. No matter how much you try, no matter how objective you try to be, and no matter how much of a standard you try to set, you are not going to be able to consistently apply it as long as people are making judgement calls. It is not even necessarily a case of bias. It just the reality that every one of these plays and situations is different, and nobody is ever going to see them the same way every time. Humans are inconsistent, irrational and flawed beings. Mistakes will happen. Interpretations will change. Opinions will take over. You can not possibly maintain the same standard with this over time when there is no actual guideline or defined definition with it.
The fact NHL coaches have gotten so bad at goalie interference reviews this season should be eye-opening. These guys didn’t just suddenly get stupid with it. There is a genuine lack of understanding on what is happening and what the league is doing with it.
I would love to see the NHL’s head coaches and general managers, and even people within NHL operations, sit down and be shown all of the league’s goalie interference challenges this season and try to blindly guess what the result was and how often then get it right. My guess is it would probably come close to matching what the actual challenge results are. And that is simply not good enough.
Replay shouldn’t be trying to fix coin-flip decisions. It shouldn’t be getting into interpretations and opinions.
It should be fixing objective, easily identifiable mistakes that fall under a black-and-white description within the rule. Anything more than that just leads to chaos, confusion, and frustration.