Mike Machnik's (and other's) less than enthusiastic endorsement for replays
is puzzling.  We communicate via the Internet, a truly remarkable 20th (and
21st) century testament to technology.  Yet, when it comes to sports we want
to remain in the dark ages.  I'll agree that, when used incessantly, replay
becomes tedious. The NFL's problem is that they used it too much, for every
mundane play.  If we saved replay for only goals how many times we would it
be used it per game?  Ryan Robbins' reaction as an umpire is puzzling as
well.  Isn't it the credo of every official to get the call right.  There are
certainly occasions in every game where the officials huddle together to
interpret a rule or to get a 2nd opinion on whether a call was the correct
one.  Why not use the technology we have to enhance the results of these 2nd
opinions?  Off the top of my head I can think of 4 instances where a game
might have been better served by having replay:
     1) 1994: Northeastern scores the apparent winner vs
        LSSU, only to have it waived off.  LSSU goes on
        to win the game and the national title.
     2) 1993: LSSU scores the apparent tying goal in the
        NCAA Final vs. Maine, only to have it waived of
        off.  Maine wins the game and the title.
     3) 1994:  Detroit Lions beat the NY Giants in OT.
        The tying and winning TDs are scored by Herman
        Moore on plays where the replay clearly shows
        he did not have possession (TD#1) and he was
        down by contact (TD#2).  The Lions make the
        playoffs, the Giants don't.
     4) 1985: Royals vs. Cardinals World Series. Don
        Denkinger calls Jorge Orta safe at 1st base when
        he is clearly out in the 9th inning of the 6th
        game, Royals down 3 games to 1.  Royals rally,
        win the game and the Series.
 
I say, lets get the call right, especially when the outcome of a game or the
season hangs in the balance.
 
Greg Ambrose
Go UNH BLUE, beat Denver!