Assignment3:PersuasivePaperPart1:AProblemExists

Peerreviewsshouldprovidefeedbacktoapeeronthecriteriaexpectedinthepaper.Followtheseinstructions:

1)    Receiveaclassmate’spaperfrom yourprofessor(inclassifon-ground;bye-mailifonline).

2)    CopythePeerReviewFeedbackFormfromtheAppendix.

3)    Commentonallcriteria,notingstrengthsand/orareasforimprovementonthefeedbackform.

4)    ProvidecompletedPeerReviewFeedbackFormandclassmate’spapertoyourprofessor.

Note:On-groundstudentsshouldsubmitthefeedbackformandpapertotheprofessorduringtheclassmeetinginwhichthepaperisreviewed;onlinestudentsshouldsubmitthefeedbackformandpapertotheprofessorviatheAssignmentTabinthecourseshell.

The Case Against Instant Replay 

Muyiwa Fagbami

Professor Virginia Rodriguez

ENG 215 – Research and Writing

11/06/2016

The Case Against Instant Replay

            Professional sports are a cornerstone of several global cultures. In the USA, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and to a lesser extent, the NHL are major industries that draw large in-person and televised audiences, and sell billions of dollars of merchandise, TV rights, sponsorships and endorsements, among other things. In the British commonwealth, cricket and rugby are huge draws, and soccer dominates the rest of the global stage (now making major inroads into the lucrative American market). In such massive industries, success is in incredibly high demand, and every game played between teams is scrutinized to the last detail, from the coaches’ tactics to the referees’ decisions. In the 24/7 news cycle, there is such a thing as too much coverage, as ultimately the blame for a lost opportunity must be placed somewhere. Unfortunately, the individuals that receive a lion’s share of the ire are referees. Almost every major league has spent millions on researching and then implementing additional technology to assist referees; however, incorrect calls continue to be made. Thus, it is time to scrap technology-assisted refereeing, as it not only is not a perfect system, but can also lead to further confusion.

            The NFL was the first major league to seriously consider and implement video reply after a few high-profile missed calls, for example a missed touchdown in the 1980 AFC Championship game by Mike Renfro (Berman, 2011). Six years later, the league introduced instant replay review. However, despite best intentions, the initial replay system was immensely flawed due to the incredibly basic technology behind it. The result was an average of three minutes per review by 1999, adding approximately 15 minutes to each game; furthermore, the NFL “acknowledged that fully 13 percent of the reversals were mistaken” (Berman, 2011). By 1992, the system was scrapped, but was reintroduced in 1999, backed by better technology and a more streamlined process. However, the initial results should have been a warning sign that the desired results would be much more difficult to attain than initially expected. Critically, the current system is still using the exact same standard since the original system: indisputable visual evidence is required to overturn any decision, ultimately making decisions a judgement call by the referee. Calls for technologically-assisted aids in soccer have been ongoing for years. The tipping point in that sport might have been Frank Lampard’s disallowed goal in the 2010 World Cup quarter-final against Germany. Goal-line technology began to be seriously considered, and eventually applied in some leagues after that.

            Replay technology is not inexpensive. In the current format, there are multiple angles from which a referee can choose. That means multiple cameras at strategic points of the stadium; each camera must be capable of zooming in to minute details in case required by a referee. The feeds of each camera must be immediately available to the referee if a review is required. Then there is the matter of the review booth operated by the referee. Little known to outside observers is that feeds are also available to members of each coaching staff, and those monitors must be paid for as well. In soccer, the use of goal-line technology requires a chip embedded in the ball and the goalposts (the English Premier League uses the GoalRef system). Those sensors, as can be expected, run a cost. HawkEye is used in Cricket, Tennis and Billiards, and was trialed in the Premier League; it consists of several cameras arrayed around the area of play (Gibbs, 2014). All the investment made into this technology can be better served by improving referee training, as they are still required to make the call. Additionally, clarifying the rulebooks of these sports would go a long way to reducing confusion. Some of the most contentious calls that drive fans and coaches crazy revolve around “what, exactly, is a catch” in the NFL, and “how is offside adjudged” in soccer. The biggest cause for concern cost-wise is in soccer; richer leagues such as the English Premier League and the German Bundesliga can afford such technology; consistency cannot be made worldwide as poorer leagues in other parts of the world cannot afford to put these systems in place.

            As previously mentioned, the critical flaw in any technologically-enhanced refereeing system is the human element, the referee themselves. This is not a critique of the profession, but it spotlights the challenge that exists and will continue to exist for time eternal. In the NFL, a referee can see 15 replays from an equal number of angles, but can still make the wrong call. In fact, that occurs in almost every single game. For example, a receiver may catch a ball, but then it comes out of his possession as he comes to the ground. The referee has to be the one to decide whether it was a sufficient catch (did the player make a “football” move or not, etc…). In soccer, the chance of a referee making a mistake using the GoalRef system is actually rather minimal, but still present. If the ball crosses the line, no matter how minutely, the system generates a signal sent to the referee’s watch, which vibrates. If the referee misses the vibration, or perhaps the signal isn’t sent, the entire system has failed.

             At the core of the reason to scrap technologically-assisted referee is the concept that has been alluded to many times so far: the human element. Sports are contested by flawed humans, coached and managed by flawed humans, and refereed by flawed humans. The main cries for referee assistance come when it appears that a game has been decided by a single refereeing error. However, that is simply scapegoating. Any player, coach or fan who claims that a game was decided on a referring decision is simply deluded. Through the game, players make mistakes on plays; coaches miss opportunities to influence games. Ultimately, even refereeing mistakes must be accepted, however infuriating. Sporting events are watched for the drama of it all. Referring errors can be simply another factor of the game, another talking point to be dissected. However, continuing to invest in and deploy additional technology is not the answer.

            Over the past few decades, technologically-assisted refereeing has been applied to many of the major sports leagues. In football, referees can review plays on their own volition or by coach’s challenge. Challenges are available in the MLB and the NHL, and the NHL has invested in a central review station known as the “war room”. Soccer has goal-line technology and is considering additional technological aids. These tools undeniably can aid in getting some call correct, but in the long run, are not worth the investment. The various systems are rather expensive to implement. Furthermore, they do still require human judgement and intervention to be able to fully function, as they are simply aids, not decision makers. Finally, the human element of sport is important and should not be trivialized. Embracing this element would make sport more enjoyable for its drama and unpredictability.

References

Berman, M. N. (2011). Replay. California Law Review, 991683.

Gibbs, S. (2014, Jun 16). World Cup goalline technology: how does it work? The Guardian.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/world-cup-goalline-technology-football-brazil-2014

Oliver, and Oliver, J. (2011). Instant replay for game calling. In L. Swayne & M.

Dodds, Encyclopedia of Sports management and marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sagesports/instant_replay_for_game_calling/0

Sadler, E. (2015, Oct 13). Should the NHL’s war room decide on goal calls? Sportsnet. Retrieved

from http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/should-the-nhls-war-room-decide-on-goal-calls/

Note: On-ground students should submit the feedback form and paper to the professor during the class meeting in which the paper is reviewed; online students should submit the feedback form and paper to the professor via the “Easy Drop off/Pick up Zone” discussion thread and Peer Review Assignment link in the course shell.

As you read a classmate’s paper, address these criteria:

• Identify the course, assignment, and date.

• Provide positive feedback, where appropriate, on the criteria.

• Identify areas for improvement, where appropriate, and recommend improvements.  

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

• Recognize the elements and correct use of a thesis statement. 

• Recognize transitional words, phrases, and sentences.

• Identify effective sentence variety and word choice. 

• Identify positive qualities and opportunities for improvement in writing samples.

• Analyze the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, logos in writing samples and for incorporation into essays or presentations. 

• Correct grammatical and stylistic errors consistent with Standard Written English

• Recognize how to organize ideas with transitional words, phrases, and sentences.

• Points: 50	Assignment: Peer Review
  Criteria	Unacceptable Below 60% F	Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D	Fair 70-79% C	Proficient 80-89% B	Exemplary 90-100% A
  1. Identify the course, assignment, and date. Weight: 10%	Did not submit or incompletely identified the course, assignment, and date.	Insufficiently identified the course, assignment, and date.	Partially identified the course, assignment, and date.	Satisfactorily identified the course, assignment, and date.	Thoroughly identified the course, assignment, and date.
  2. Give positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate. Weight: 45%	Did not submit or incompletely gave positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate.	Insufficiently gave positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate.	Partially gave positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate.	Satisfactorily gave positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate.	Thoroughly gave positive feedback on the criteria where appropriate.
  3. Identify areas for improvement, where appropriate. Weight: 45%	Did not submit or incompletely identified areas for improvement, where appropriate.	Insufficiently identified areas for improvement, where appropriate.	Partially identified areas for improvement, where appropriate.	Satisfactorily identified areas for improvement, where appropriate.	Thoroughly identified areas for improvement, where appropriate.