The Guardrails Replay Needs
College basketball season is well behind us. Lots of exciting games. Lots of outstanding officiating. Lots and lots of replays. Let’s consider the following.
In late March, the venerable Wall Street Journal published a piece in its sports section on how replay is driving fans crazy (their words). The Journal had been tabulating the number and length of time for replays in the NCAA men’s tournament games leading up to the Sweet 16.
Here is what they reported: “In total, there have already been at least 52 reviews so far and together they have lasted a grand total of 111 minutes and 23 seconds. Considering that a college basketball game is only 40 minutes of action, that’s nearly three full games’ worth of watching officials huddle, stare at a monitor and eventually announce their decision.”
The report goes on to show how games have obviously gotten longer and now check in at over 2 hours and 4 minutes on average, a full five minutes longer than just a few years ago. They shared the following anecdote as a possible reason why, and I quote: “Late in the UCLA v. Utah State game, the game was stopped for 1 minute and 53 seconds to check an out of bounds call — never mind that UCLA was up by 21 with just 1:49 left in the game.”
The piece went on to state that like many other “leagues,” the NCAA has expanded what is able to be reviewed. We all know reviews are rampant in soccer (VAR) and certainly in professional and collegiate football. Heck, very expensive command centers have been built and staffed for the sole purpose of pursuing “perfection” in a number of different sports, and worldwide. They will be used.
There is an old adage that continues to nag at me: Just because you can does not mean you should. I believe we are coming to such a fork in the replay road. Don’t misunderstand me: Replay, and its use, is a plus. It helps games be decided more fairly and it is an assist to the officiating crew when needed. Replay has become an essential ingredient in the theater of sports. It also plays this critical role: It helps verify the believability of outcomes. And let’s not forget how invested sports gambling is in the outcomes of games!
Technology is going to continue its evolution. The ability to capture and evaluate major, minor and miniscule occurrences during games will be enhanced. The technology is not the issue. The administration of that technology is. Guardrails need to be built, disseminated and enforced. Those who govern the games have an obligation to look at the bigger picture and help games not become an exercise in technical perfection. Not everything and maybe not even most things should be reviewed. There cannot be “flow” when games are interrupted and placed on hold time and time again. Use review for agreed upon “critical” situations. Defining that word “critical” is the assignment. A reasonable case could be made that fewer things should be reviewable, but I doubt that case will ever be made.
So, for us, what does the future look like? In my humble opinion it is this: The future will undoubtedly be a tighter and tighter working relationship with technology. Many are already in its throes. At first it serves as our consultant. Then it comes to serve as our master. Are we getting ready?
Referee Magazine Publisher, Barry Mano’s latest Publisher’s Memo. Found in the June, 2025 issue of Referee. For more information or to subscribe to Referee magazine, visit www.referee.com.
View the Officiating In Perspective Video Archive on YouTube