From sagging ratings to concerns about player safety and CTE, the NFL has its fair share of issues. One of those issues, unequivocally, is instant replay, which seems to provide uproar du jour far too often.
Amy Trask, for one, believes that changes need to be made.
“Look, technology continues to advance,” the former Raiders CEO and current CBS Sports NFL analyst said on After Hours with Amy Lawrence. “This is a game (with) – we hear the expression all the time – bang-bang plays. This is a game played by very, very large men at a very, very high rate of speed. There’s high speed, high impact. There needs to be greater deference in judgement calls to the officials who are on the field.”
That doesn’t mean we should do away with instant replay and give officials the benefit of the doubt on every call. But it does mean we should be more selective during replay reviews.
“I absolutely think there’s a role for replay,” Trask said. “Replay can tell us was his foot in-bounds? Was his foot out-of-bounds? That’s not subjective. That’s a really good use of replay. But as to subjectivity – control, maintaining control to the ground – I think there needs to be greater deference to the men who are calling the game on the field.”
That means following instant-replay protocols as the NFL intended – as opposed to how one individual sees fit in that moment.
“Look, the standard for replay reversal is supposed to be clear and convincing,” Trask said. “Do I, as a replay official, see clear and convincing evidence that the call on the field was wrong? I’m not supposed to substitute my judgment as a replay official for the judgment of the men on the field. I’m a big believer in the eye test, if you will. If the man standing right there believes it’s a catch and sees it’s a catch and calls it a catch, let’s go with that and let’s use replay only to determine that which is objective. Were your feet on the ground? Were you touched before you went down? Those are some of the things I would do.”