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!