Running the Break: Instant replay review needs to be fixed or done away with entirely

Several weeks ago, I was watching a game between the Brooklyn Nets and the Cleveland Cavaliers. The game was tied, and Nets point guard Kyrie Irving was called for an offensive foul with 1.5 seconds remaining in regulation. The call was challenged, reviewed and overturned in favor of the Nets. 

Because the Cavs were over the foul limit, Irving should have shot two free throws and the Nets likely would have won the game with such little time on the clock. However, because the ball was loose when play was stopped, the result of the overturned call was a jump ball. The fourth quarter ended, and the Cavs went on to win in double overtime. 

How is this the proper way to correct a bad call on the floor? The Nets did nothing wrong; they simply got fouled and the officials made a mistake. Yet they are punished for it by not having a chance to win the game at the end of regulation, even though they had the ball. 

This happens nearly every week in one sport or another, and instant replay review is often only time consuming and frustrating; it seems to rarely affect the game in a positive manner.

Another classic example presented itself this week at the end of a game between the New York Knicks and the Miami Heat. A loose ball foul was called on the floor against power forward Julius Randle and the Knicks. The call was reviewed to determine if it should be changed to a flagrant foul. 

During the review, it was quite clear that forward Kelly Olynyk of the Heat committed a foul before the foul in question occurred. While this must have been obvious to the officials, it could not be retroactively called a foul, thus Heat retained possession. The rules do not allow a play to be reviewed for a foul if a foul was not called, and a review also may only change the outcome of exactly what is being reviewed. 

So, Olynyk’s foul was irrelevant because the review was looking at Randle’s foul. 

Why are these rules so particular? Why can’t the correct call be applied based on what actually happened on the court? In Irving’s case, why was the result of an overturned call different than if it had been called correctly to begin with? 

Furthermore, the limitations on what can and can’t be reviewed by the officials or by the coaches seem arbitrary. The New Orleans Saints lost the 2018 NFC Championship game after maybe the worst pass-interference no-call in NFL history. A simple challenge could have changed the course of the season, but instead the Los Angeles Rams would advance to the Super Bowl. 

The rule has since been changed to make pass interference calls and no-calls reviewable, but was changed back after one season. Regardless, sports leagues cannot wait until a team gets robbed of its chance to advance to the Super Bowl before addressing these inconsistent rules. 

The list of issues I have with replay review goes on. In the NBA, coaches are allowed one challenge per game whether their initial challenge was successful or not. If the wrong call is made on the floor, and the coach of a team is forced to use their challenge to correct it, then that team should not pay the price of the referee’s mistake by losing its only challenge. 

Replay review was originally created for things like seeing if the receiver had both feet in bounds on a catch. In reality, the “right call” often isn’t what’s important. The result of a review is frequently determined by the call on the field in the first place. It begs the question, should pro sports leagues just do away with replay review entirely?

FiveThirtyEight found that 41% of reviews in the NFL from 2011 to 2016 resulted in an overturned call. While this seems like a significant number, it really isn’t given that it’s 41% of calls that were questionable enough to warrant an official review or coach’s challenge to begin with. 

If replay review in various sports leagues can be fixed to establish some consistency and emphasis on making the correct call, independent of the cause of the review, then even a relatively small number of overturned calls would be made for the better. But currently, the inconsistency and flaws of replay review rules seems to do more harm than good. 

Suggesting an abandonment of challenging calls and replay review may feel like a very strong reaction; however, it’s a difficult problem to approach. You can address these individual concerns one by one, but it’s hard to imagine there won’t just be more unpredictable controversies like the infamous Dez Bryant catch decision that went against the Dallas Cowboys wide receiver in 2015. 

You can change the rules after the fact, but the damage is already done for the Cowboys, the Saints and the Nets. In order to create a fair playing environment, void of contentious outcomes and contradictions in challenged plays, something has to change. If leagues can’t come up with rules that solve all of these problems and more, the best approach might just be to abolish replay review completely.

Wyatt Allsup is a junior writing about professional sports. His column, “Running the Break”, runs every other Thursday.