View Single Post
Old 01-21-2002, 10:54 PM   #1
Marc's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lake Wylie, SC
Posts: 26,565
Marc will become famous soon enough
Default Instant Reply, Upon Further Review

With all the controversy still surrounding the Pats/Raiders game on Saturday night, Craig Hardesty brings up another issue: instant replay. He basically says mistakes are inevitable and NFL refs are good and we should just play the game without dealing with replays. Raiders fans definitely aren't on instant replay's side... as instant replay was the reason their call was overturned, costing them their season. What's your take?
Instant Reply, Upon Further Review

By Craig Hardesty
Monday, January 21st, 2002

You can bet your last challenge that every member of the Oakland Raiders will be replaying Tom Brady's infamous "non-fumble" over and over again in their minds for the entire offseason. And it is an even safer bet that every member of the Raiders also wishes that the officials had not replayed the non-fumble at all this past Saturday night.

Even if you can stomach the shaky explanation of that pivotal play (the referee ruled that Brady's arm motion constituted an incomplete pass even though he was clearly holding the ball when Charles Woodson slapped it out of his hand), what is a lot harder to accept is the fact that the original ruling was overturned because of instant replay.

To make matters worse, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick did not even challenge the call himself - the play was reviewed automatically because of a very suspect "under two minutes" rule. According to NFL instant replay law, any close call that occurs during the last two minutes of the half will automatically be reviewed.

What about the other 56 minutes of the game? Don't close calls happen during that time, as well?
Marc James - SCMB Administrator | Sports Central Managing Editor & Founder
Teams: [Kentucky Wildcats] [Green Bay Packers] [Charlotte Hornets]
Follow on Twitter: @mnjames | @sportcentral
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote