Get it right.
That is the mantra of replay advocates across the sports world. We have the technology, they argue, so why not apply it to every disputed call and get it right ?
Sounds simple enough. Until you actually think about it.
Only so many in-game instances can be subjected to video review. That leaves a multitude of others profoundly impacting games — the missed holding call that leads to a touchdown; the obvious trip that leads to a goal; the pitch down the middle that is called a ball and leads to the winning run.
Let's not pretend instant replay can create anything close to perfect officiating conditions. And let's not pretend they get it right even on plays that are reviewed.
If not for a blown video review in the NFL last season, the Steelers might have won the Super Bowl.
It happened in late October, when the NFL admitted replay officials mistakenly overturned a touchdown catch by Minnesota's Visanthe Shiancoe in a the Vikings' 28-24 loss to Green Bay. If the Vikings win that game, Green Bay likely misses the playoffs — and the Steelers are playing somebody else in the Super Bowl.
Now think about this: How many times do you watch 87 replays of, say, a disputed catch, and still not know if the guy caught the ball⢠Sometimes there is no "right" to get.
In the NHL, they review goal calls. Which is good. But you'll find folks who want to expand replay to include everything from four-minute high-sticking penalties to offsides.
How about just living with the occasional blown call?
Twice in the past week, the Pirates were involved in plays that could become replay fodder in Major League Baseball next season. On one, center fielder Andrew McCutchen caught a ball that was ruled a hit. On another, left fielder Jose Tabata trapped a ball that was ruled a catch — one that went a long way toward the Pirates defeating the Dodgers.
I liked what first baseman Lyle Overbay said when I asked him about the prospect of expanded replay. Currently, only home runs are subject to video review. Next season, it could be expanded to trapped balls and fair-or-foul rulings down the lines.
"Everybody wants to get the call right. Well, sometimes it doesn't happen that way," Overbay said. "I'm not a big fan of (expanded replay). I like it on home runs because outfield fences have changed a lot since back in the day. Otherwise, if a call doesn't go your way, you have to find a way to overcome it."
That said, I acknowledge this much: There is not a more ludicrous sight in sports than a group of umpires huddling to determine whether, for example, a ground ball down the line was fair or foul when millions of television viewers already know it was two feet foul. I hear Pirates outfielder Matt Diaz when he says, "I think everyone is interested in getting the calls made correctly, including the umpires."
Of course they are. But it's an impossible dream. You're just not going to get everything right, unless you apply video review to base calls and even balls and strikes. Former major league pitcher and manager Larry Dierker advocated for the latter in an article on MLB.com last year, saying umpires should have a buzzer that tells them whether a pitch is a ball or a strike.
At that point, don't you just use robots — or maybe John Russell clones — to call the games?
Here is a more modest proposal: Continue to review home runs and give each manager one challenge per game on other plays, excluding disputes on balls and strikes.
Ex-Pirates manager Lloyd McClendon, now a coach for the Detroit Tigers, argued for this last season when I spoke with him a few days after Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga lost a perfect game on a blown call at first base.
A challenge, used properly, would overturn many of the most egregious calls.
Otherwise, we'll just have to live with the fact that nobody — and no system — is perfect.
