"Football Night in America" made a potentially powerful statement for the good of pro football Sunday night when Bob Costas, the on-site host for NBC Sports, used his weekly commentary segment to point out the myriad problems with the NFL's replay system.Sometimes Costas rails for no apparent reason in that weekly spot, but with common sense in his corner and so many possible examples to display the flaws of the replay system, the commentator perhaps best known for his baseball work hit a home run.
Costas pegged the problems of replay -- everything from the vested interests of stadium scoreboard operators, who often fail to show replays that could hurt the host team, to the occasional shortcoming of network broadcasts, which might not make the right replay available soon enough for coaches to make a decision about a possible challenge.
In fact, the commentary was somewhat remarkable simply because it mentioned the networks themselves. But that was good, because it was accurate and transparent -- things to which the league itself should strive for the replay system.
With Costas' gravitas, and especially as a result of the high-profile forum in which he expressed his opinion, perhaps there's a chance the NFL might be swayed to alter its archaic system. When former Colts coach Tony Dungy and former NFL defensive back Rodney Harrison both chimed in immediately after Costas to support the idea of change, that only made things better -- at least for the millions of us who watch from home each week and know the frustrating inaccuracies and inefficiencies of the system.
After all, if the idea of replay for NFL games is to get things right, then challenges should be taken out of the hands of coaches and every play in every game should be eligible for review. Coaches, limited to two challenges per game under the current system, might lose an early challenge and then be hesitant to use another later in the game because they fear being left without a challenge for the waning moments of a game.
That obviously erodes the integrity of the game -- and the difference in one play can mean the difference in winning and losing a game, and whether that's the third game of the season or the 13th it matters just as much because one more loss on a team's record could certainly mean the difference between a playoff spot for a team or not.
Dungy missed things a bit when he said the college replay rule reviews every scoring play -- it actually reviews every single play -- but that should be the system to which the NFL aspires.
In the past, the league's perceived arrogance (anything that did not originate in the league's New York offices or form its owners has always been looked down upon, it seems) has been a problem when adjusting rules or making significant changes. Simply because the NFL does not want to be seen as implementing someone else's idea.
Still, a replay system that uses a referee at the stadium but not on the field could succeed. It would avoid the silliness of having the game's referee entering a booth on the sideline and it would seemingly allow replays to happen sooner.
An improved replay system would benefit fans at home, who can often see a good or bad call clearly themselves, as well as fans at the stadiums, who would have to endure shorter breaks for replay reviews under an improved system. Coaches and player would also benefit because their efforts would be rewarded and the game itself would not be perverted -- especially in instances when a team tries to run play quickly, before an initial replay clarifies any possible challenge.
It's just such a logical approach -- that the NFL use technology and make its replay system better -- that it deserves to be evaluated. And, with Costas championing the approach that finally might happen. Thanks Bob!