Shop Fantasy Central Golf Guide Email Travel Subscribe SI About Us
 
  U.S. SPORTS
  scoreboards
baseball S
pro football S
col. football S
pro basketball S
m. college bb S
w. college bb S
hockey S
golf plus S
tennis S
soccer S
olympics 2000
motor sports
women's sports
more sports
 WORLD SPORT  

EVENTS
 Sportsman of the Year
 Heisman Trophy
 Swimsuit 2001

CENTERS
 Fantasy Central
 Inside Game
 Multimedia Central
 Statitudes
 Your Turn
 Message Boards
 Email Newsletters
 Golf Guide
 Cities
 Work in Sports

CNNSI.com GROUP
 Sports Illustrated
 Life of Reilly
 Television
 SI Women
 SI for Kids
 Press Room
 TBS/TNT Sports
 CNN Languages

COMMERCE
 SI Customer Service
 SI Media Kits
 Get into College
 Sports Memorabilia
 TeamStore

Moment Of Truth

The wildest comeback in Ryder Cup history culminated in one unlikely putt that clinched a stunning victory for the U.S. team

By Mark Mravic
Issue date: July 12, 1999

Sports Illustrated Flashback Proponents of instant replay as an officiating tool like to summon up apocalyptic visions of the moment when a major championship would turn on a questionable call that could have been reversed by a quick check of the videotape. That moment came in the third overtime of Game 6 of the 1999 Stanley Cup finals. Unlike the gloomy scenario envisioned by replay's supporters, however, officials did have replay at their disposal and did go to the videotape after Dallas's Brett Hull slid the puck past sprawling Buffalo goaltender Dominik Hasek for the apparent Cup-winner. Replay officials determined that Hull had kept control of the puck as it briefly left the crease, making the goal legal. Many fans--those in Buffalo, especially--didn't buy that interpretation.

So, in its moment of truth, did replay do the job it was meant to? Judging by the Cup finals' unpleasant aftertaste, no. What's more, the NHL's experience with video review on its grandest stage doesn't bode well for instant replay when it returns to the NFL this fall. Football fans should expect no more satisfaction with officiating than they got last year, when repeated bumbling by the refs renewed the outcry for replay.

More often than not, video adds to controversy rather than resolve it. (Just ask Zapruder.) Why? Because human beings still must interpret the events on the tape. Replay doesn't make the call; it merely shifts the onus from fallible officials on the field to fallible officials in the booth.

How often do you find yourself grinding your teeth as a sportscaster declares that a replay offers incontrovertible proof of one thing while you see something different? The tape is rarely cut-and-dried. After an arguable possession call in the 49ers-Falcons playoff game last season, Fox commentator Matt Millen said on the air, "If somebody tells me that instant replay wouldn't have overturned it, I'm gonna take the ball and shove it down their throat." In the studio at halftime, analyst Cris Collinsworth said he thought the refs had gotten it right.

We shouldn't have to resort to violence or videotape to resolve sports disputes. Games are meant to be played by people and officiated by people. Those who long for the days when sports were simpler would do well to remember that in those halcyon times, replay wasn't an issue. A blown call was a blown call. Here's hoping that Super Bowl XXXIV doesn't hinge on a call that's sent up to the booth.

Issue date: July 12, 1999


CNNSI Copyright © 2000
CNN/Sports Illustrated
An AOL Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved.

Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.