Having review systems in various sports can be extremely helpful. It can help clear up any issues or make crucial judgements when it comes to answering the question if a goal has been scored or foul play has been made and a red card or similaar punishment is required. I believe that review systems can either be your best friend or your worst enemy. I will go through each one and evaluate it.
There are two issues of review systems that have come into question recently: tennis and football. There seems to be a lack of it in tennis. Coco Gauff has called for tennis to universally implement a Video Review system after she was reduced to tears following a controversial decision made by the umpire in her Roland Garros semifinal defeat to Iga Świątek.
With Gauff leading 2-1 in the second set, a line judge called her return of serve “out” but the umpire overruled the decision. The American then argued the line judge’s call impacted her shot, but the umpire disagreed.
She said, “Tennis is the only sport where not only we don’t have the VR system, but a lot of times the decisions are made by one person. In other sports, there are usually multiple refs making a decision. I know the US Open brought some of it last year, I believe, I know we used it in our doubles at one point. I definitely think at this point it’s almost ridiculous we don’t have it. Not just speaking because that happened to me, but I just think every sport has it.
Also, there are so many decisions that are made, and it sucks as a player to go back or online and you see that you were completely right, and it’s, like, what does that give you in that moment?
In situations you can call for the supervisor, but there’s not much they can do from that standpoint. I definitely think as a sport we have to evolve, and we have the technology. They’re showing it on TV, so I don’t get why the player can’t see it.”
The video review system uses the same technology that is behind the sport’s ‘Hawkeye’ system and allows players to challenge decisions such as double bounces or foul shots. It has been used in the ATP Finals after first being trialed in the Next Generation Finals and was introduced for the first time at a grand slam at last year’s US Open.
With this talk with a review system in tennis, there needs to be a reminder that one exists: a Hawk-Eye system. Players can challenge an in/out call up to three times per set. When they do, the tech upholds or overturns the call within seconds – as clear visuals are broadcast to the audience.
It’s the most unobtrusive and accurate review system in sports. It’s a clear No. 1. Hawk-Eye comes with a very slim error margin (3.6 millimeters). So it’s not perfect.
This system can be very beneficial when determining whether a player has won a game or a set. It can be crucial in determining a victor of the match. Intially, I believed that this was all that was needed. However, having read what some additional technology could do, I believe that it's best to implement the video review system into tennis immediately. This will allow players to challenge nearly all actions that can take place.
A more controversial system and is always being talked about is VAR (Video Assistant Referee) in football. It has recently come to light that Wolves wanted VAR to be abolished. Their attempt failed with a 19-1 in favour of keeping it. Wolves - who were on the receiving end of several controversial VAR decisions this season - tabled a vote to abolish the system, saying it is "undermining the value of the Premier League brand."
Upon hearing of the voting outcome, Wolves said, "While we are disappointed with the outcome of the vote on the future of VAR at today's Annual General Meeting, we acknowledge and accept the decision made by our fellow clubs and we are reassured that the Premier League is taking the concerns of clubs and supporters seriously.
We welcome the commitment to improve VAR, particularly in areas that address delays, consistency, and fan experience.
While we still believe that Premier League football would be superior for supporters, players, coaches and viewers without VAR, we think that these improvements are crucial for the integrity of the game and for enhancing the overall matchday experience for our supporters.
Wolves remain committed to working closely with the Premier League and PGMOL to ensure that VAR continues to evolve and better serve the interests of football. We appreciate the efforts being made to address the issues that we have highlighted in our resolution and look forward to seeing whether the changes implemented this summer can reverse the decline in matchday experience for our fans, and respect for our officials."
As I said above, VAR is very controversial. This is mainly due to calls being subjective. It's these calls that can make some fans furious and some jubalent. The most talked about is the call of being offside. Calls can be made by a millimetre and it's that margin that can make all the headlines. One example is the call the goal that could've led to Conventry going to Wembley for the FA Cup final and also causing a major upset and comeback win against eventual FA Cup winners, Manchester United.
I believe it should stay. It has helped a lot. This has been in determining if a goal should stand; if a card should be rescinded or upgraded or whether a foul has taken place within the box and ergo, a penalty needs to be awarded.
In cricket, there exists a review system that is strictly used to check if a wicket has been taken or not. The benefit is that the technology is clear-cut. This allows objective decisions to be made. The only decision that can be subjective is if a catch has been caught cleanly (the ball hasn't hit the ground before the catch was made).
What's a bonus is that there's a big screen where the players and spectators can see the review status. Therefore, there isn't secrecy in the final decision being made. The game will be changed forever if the ICC (the governing board) or MCC (rule makers) choose to outlaw this system.
In rugby union, there is a TMO (Television Match Official). They can review if a try was scored or foul play was made. The problem lies in the decision making. These can be highhly subjective. To me, there's no way to make objective calls. It's an opinion based call.
In the NFL, the list of reviewable plays has gotten pretty lengthy: catches; fumbles; ball spots and a bunch of offshoots and others. In 2019, pass interference joined the club. Those calls are automatically reviewed if they contribute to a scoring play or turnover. Otherwise, coaches get two challenges per game to trigger second looks. Win both and they get a third. Lose one and they lose a timeout. Everything in the final two minutes of a half is also subject to booth review.
The benefits of this system are that the reviewable play types are mostly factual, even if evidence sometimes isn’t conclusive. The outcomes of reviews are often logical and uncontroversial. The NFL’s system serves its purpose: it corrects those mistakes without going overkill. The past four seasons have featured a mere 1.5 reviews per game.
On the downside, occasionally, there’ll be a string of lengthy, disruptive reviews or mystifying upon-further-review decisions. However, they are rare. The main worry is over pass interference. As former Colts executive and competition committee member, Bill Polian, recently said, “Once we stray from correcting the obvious and egregious errors, and get into correcting judgement calls, we’re going down a really slippery slope.”
I feel like I'm in no position to comment as I don't watch/follow the sport. Reading about the benefits makes me believe that it's pivotal for the game. Yes, there will be delays as a result but that's part of the parcel of reviewing plays.
In Baseball, literally, everything can be reviewed, except balls and strikes. A challenge system has been implemented. Coaches get one and a second if their first is successful and a third if their second is successful, and so on. One becomes two in the playoffs. Beginning in the seventh innings, umpires can also initiate reviews of questionable calls from the field. The actual reviewing is done by officials in New York but under-review plays are shown on big screens in stadiums.
There are few benefits, if any, judgement calls in baseball. Everything is factual. The challenge system protects against excessive interruptions - unless umpires have an awful day in the office, in which case replay is serving its purpose.
The downfalls include some factual calls being so “bang-bang” that they’re debatable on replay. The lack of clarity leads to painfully long reviews that slow down an already-slow sport. Replays have also stripped some of the unwritten leeway from baseball’s rules and forced umpires to interpret them literally – sometimes to the perceived detriment of the game.
Once again, I feel like I'm in no position to comment as I don't watch/follow the sport. There's definitely a benefit to reviewing everything. However, reviewing everything that is questionable can be time consuming and it can make attendees and fans annoyed by it. They might be switched off by it.
In ice hockey, before 2019-20, the only reviewable play was a goal – which can be disallowed by officials in a “war room” at NHL headquarters if a) the puck did not completely cross the goal line before time expired or b) it was redirected in by a hand, skate, high stick or referee. Coaches also get one challenge to contest goaltender interference (calls and no-calls on goals) or offside (no-calls on goals).
The league, however, is expanding its replay system. Officials will review major penalties. Coaches can now challenge certain “black-and-white” calls in the buildup to goals. There’s no limit on challenges, but each unsuccessful one draws a two-minute minor for delay of game.
The benefits include that goals and penalties are, naturally, stoppages in play. The NHL’s replay system, therefore, doesn’t inject stoppages into game flow. It occasionally prolongs them, but is relatively unobtrusive. Penalties for challenge failures will keep it in check.
Downsides includes goaltender interference being ambiguous. The offside reviews, meant to address blatant errors, have instead led to frame-by-frame replay dissections that don’t quite align with the spirit of the rule. So there are growing pains and gray areas that the NHL must address.
I suppose the good news is that the new review system won't interfere with regular game time. Having ambiguous actions can be problematic. In most cases, proper decisions may not be able to be judged. Hence, the decision will most likely be a hunge - which isn't ideal for anyone involved.
In Basketball, Referees can review and re-adjudicate certain plays on a courtside monitor at any time. Reviewable plays include: a) whether a made basket (or attempt on which the shooter was fouled) was released before shot- or game-clock expiration; b) whether a made basket was a 2- or 3-pointer and C) incidents that could warrant punishment beyond a common foul.
Then, inside the last two minutes of the fourth quarter and overtime, out-of-bounds calls, shot-clock resets, goaltending and restricted-area block/charge calls become reviewable.
Finally, the NBA have piloted a challenge system. Coaches get one per game. At any time, they may dispute fouls, goaltending/basket interference or out-of-bounds calls. Reversals require “clear and conclusive visual evidence that the call was incorrect.”
Benefits include the buzzer-beater checks are welcome. The 2-/3-pointer checks are done during timeouts for much of the game and therefore aren’t disruptive. The system helps get late out-of-bounds calls with the power to swing games correct.
Pitfalls include the final two minutes of tight games becoming choppy marathons. Throughout the other 46 minutes, there is no mechanism for dealing with egregious errors. It’s important to note that this isn’t necessarily the NBA’s fault – basketball is simply a game of rampant subjectivity. The result is that replay is either too disruptive or minimally impactful, and the NBA hasn’t been able to find a balance in between the two extremes.
As the pitfall says, this game is highly subjective. Apparently, there's no room for objectively. This can cause problems with the players and fans.
Review systems can be very beneficial. They can help make crucial decisions at crucial times. The only problem that lies in these systems is the subjectivity that's involved. These type of calls can be detrimental. It can cause problems and media attention aplenty.
.