Upon Further Review: Instant Replay Should be Banned from Sports

Note: The following was written for a university class in philosophy of sport. It has been lightly edited and sources have been linked.

During CBS’ December 7, 1963 television broadcast of the annual 1963 Army-Navy football game, viewers were treated to the first use of instant replay when Army quarterback Rollie Stichweh’s fourth-quarter touchdown run was replayed on-air at full speed. The concept was so novel at the time that play-by-play announcer Lindsey Nelson had to clarify what had just unfolded, stating the following: “This is not live! Ladies and gentlemen, Army did not score again!”

Originally conceived by Tony Verna as a way to fill time in between snaps and show action taking place away from the ball, replay technology was expensive and limited to television in its earlier years. It was not until 1986 that the National Football League (NFL) became the first league to use replay to review and potentially overturn officials’ calls in-game. Even then, replay was discontinued in 1992 due to pace of play concerns before being reinstated in 1999.

Since then, nearly every sport has incorporated instant replay into the game, often with extensive rules detailing the circumstances in which replay can be used and what criteria must be met for a call to be changed. In the National Basketball Association (NBA), replay is frequently used to determine which team last touched a ball before it went out of bounds, whether a foul was flagrant, and whether or not a shot beat the buzzer. Soccer’s video assistant referee (VAR) technology can help decide among other things whether or not a goal was offsides and if a penalty should be awarded for a possible foul. Tennis players can make real-time challenges as to whether a ball was in or out. The NFL has recently expanded its use of replay, as sports increasingly do, to now incorporate pass interference decisions. But while all this added review has certainly made officiating more accurate, has it really succeeded in improving sport as a whole?

While the use of instant replay in sports has expanded rapidly in the past two decades, its negative consequences, including a less entertaining product, inviting a system that treats some calls as more important than others and harming the social contract between players and officials have caused more harm than good to sports. To remedy this, instant replay should be banned from sports.

An examination of ethical philosophies can provide evidence supporting the elimination of instant replay. To start, consider the consequentialist philosophy of utilitarianism. As Brian Boone writes in his book Ethics 101, “at its most basic level, utilitarianism states that if one can increase the overall happiness of the world…, then one should.” This can be achieved by acting in ways that maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. It is additionally important to note that utilitarians “don’t care who gains, as long as there is gain in some way”, resulting in what Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, would famously call “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”

Applied to a sporting context, one must first determine those affected by instant replay in sports. Certainly, the players, coaches, and referees are impacted, but particularly at the highest levels of sport, fans vastly outnumber direct participants in the sporting activity. In many sports leagues, events are regularly attended by tens of thousands and watched on television by millions. This poses the question, “does instant replay improve the sports viewing experience?”

Ultimately, that answer is dependent on the context of the replay. Going back to the original uses of instant replay, to add entertainment during stoppages of play and allow the viewer to see different angles and parts of the game that may be missed the first time around, the technology has been successful. However, in the context that modern replay is discussed, concerning its abilities to overturn the decision of game officials, it has not. The reasoning why stems from the reason the NFL removed replay between 1992 and 1999 — pace of play. In an attempt to make sure calls are made correctly in critical game situations, replay has added numerous and oftentimes lengthy review periods to sports, which detract from the action. As Will Leitch put it, “we’ve eagerly added an extra ten minutes or so every game where absolutely nothing is happening.” Adding to this trouble is that calls are most frequently reviewed at the end of games, where stakes and tensions are highest. Instant replay tapers the excitement of these situations leaving fans to become frustrated.

A related and unforeseen consequence of these review periods is that the anticipation of review itself can make the on-field product less exciting by limiting the perceived impact of outcomes. Writing for the New York Times, Jay Caspian Kang explains that when a game-winning shot is made or a late-game touchdown is scored, “we pause or at least hiccup in our response to make sure that the whole thing won’t be overturned upon review.” With replay, the absolute joy experienced in one of these situations has to be temporarily put on pause as fans hold their breath hoping their team’s receiver fulfilled the notoriously confusing requirements for a completed catch. The prospect of replay itself lingers in the back of a fan’s mind, limiting their overall enjoyment.

Replay also has negative consequences on those actively participating in sports. Having to frequently stop play to check the tapes can take a player out of their rhythm and quash any momentum. It can also lead to players badgering officials, complaining about calls and persistently pushing for review. Getting rid of replay might result in a few more missed calls here and there, making officiating in sports slightly less accurate, but it wouldn’t make anything less fair. Long term, each team would still benefit and suffer from the same amount of errors, while the game would be more entertaining.

Another useful perspective in adjudicating instant replay is that of deontology. Often presented as an opposite view to utilitarianism, the philosophy associated with Immanuel Kant starts with the concept of the categorical imperative which, according to Boone, states that “morality, or the idea of morality, is a natural outgrowth of rational thinking”, meaning that with a strict application of principles, one can evaluate the morality of any action.

For Kant, these two major principles are the formula of the universal law of nature, and the humanity formula. The universal law of nature essentially states that before performing an action, one should “ask what would happen if that action was a universal rule.” So, since it would not be advisable for every person to steal whenever one wanted something, an individual should not choose to steal.

The humanity formula advises one to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a mean, but always at the same time as an end.” Simplified, this means to recognize the humanity in other people rather than just using them to pursue one’s own goals.

First, consider how the universal law of nature might be applied to instant replay. There is no sport where every single call is reviewed. Such a rule would render sports practically unplayable, as stoppages would occur at every important action. Since every call cannot and should not be reviewed, then it holds true that no calls should be reviewed.

Looking at this from a slightly different viewpoint, sports have rules which determine when a play can be reviewed. In the NBA, for example, certain calls can only be reviewed in the last two minutes of a game. Other sports give players or teams a limited number of challenges to use at their discretion. Doing so designates some calls as more important than others, where a deontologist would see all calls as equal.

While not directly, instant replay can also be argued to violate the harm principle by encouraging players and fans to use inappropriate behavior towards referees, complaining about calls, arguing for review, and even exaggerating contact in an attempt to draw fouls. These actions use referees as a means to an end of being awarded advantages and treat referees in a way unique to their profession.

Of course, no argument is without its counters, and for the elimination of replay from sports, Aristotle’s concept of the golden mean is one of these potential counterarguments. According to the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, humans should strive to the quality of eudaimonia, which can be translated to mean “flourishing”. Aristotle believed that “every ethical virtue is a condition intermediate…between two states, one involving excess, and the other deficiency”, and by trying to find the optimal midpoint between these extremes and act in that manner, people can approach eudaimonia. The excess of courage would be rashness, acting without thinking, while the deficient state would be cowardice, being too fearful to act at all.

More generally, the golden mean suggests not to act in an extreme way, and instead opt for balance. Getting rid of instant replay entirely would certainly be an extreme solution to the problem and represent a total deficiency. On the flip side, reviewing every single call would be excessive. Instead, sports should seek a balance, using the technological capabilities of replay to make sure important calls are correct without going overboard.

This ideal balance is difficult to achieve and will be different for each sport due to differences in rules and structure, but tennis serves as a good example of how it can be done successfully. Players are given a limited amount of challenges (three incorrect challenges per set), and the incredible precision of the Hawk-Eye technology means that reviews are done quickly and accurately.

As fans will inevitably see replays on television, it can be argued that replay is necessary to maintain belief in the integrity of the game. The NBA has embraced the heavy scrutiny its officials are under by publishing reports reviewing each officiating decision in the last two minutes of close games. Adam Silver described his reasoning to Michael Lewis this way: “if people don’t believe that the league office is unbiased and that the officials are unbiased, you’re going to have a problem, regardless of the accuracy of the calls. You cannot turn the clock back on transparency.”

But what about when the prevalence of replay undermines the role of officials in the first place? Social contract theory, popularized by Thomas Hobbes, is a practical philosophy that attempts to explain why people submit themselves to rule. Hobbes offers that “given that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests.” In other words, some level of higher control is necessary for things to run smoothly.

Instant replay is a relatively new development over the history of sports. Before any replay existed, referees were put in charge of officiating games, as giving these unbiased parties total control was deemed the most efficient way of doing things. This created a social contract which successful in managing sports for generations.

However, instant replay has somewhat severed this contract by taking control out of the referees’ hands and putting increased scrutiny on their work. This has led to unrealistic standards of perfection when referees, due to the scrutiny, are likely more accurate than ever before. Yet, the expectation of perfection fuels accusations of favoritism and emboldens players, giving them the right to be much more talkative.

Perhaps the NBA has made this worse by creating a replay center in Secaucus, New Jersey tasked with providing the on-court referees with the best angles possible for aid in making replay decisions, an outcome that has not gone unnoticed by Lewis.

“The refs used to insist on their authority. At any rate, everyone agreed there was no better way to ensure the fairness of the game than to let the ref play God. The replay center is an admission the ref is not God — that he makes mistakes.”

In an unforeseen twist, by taking steps to make sure NBA games are officiated more correctly than ever before, the league has only weakened the authority of those in charge.

While eliminating instant replay from sports would be an extreme and controversial decision, it would be the right one. For most of their history, sports have existed without instant replay yet were able to be successful through the social contract formed with referees. The adoption of instant replay has slowed down sports — particularly the end of games — considerably, diminishing the excitement of what should be tense situations. Additionally, the way that replay currently operates, only reviewing some calls, means some plays are incorrectly viewed as more valuable than others. Since it would be impractical to review every single call, the logical move would be to remove none, putting an end to instant replay.