Erase
that 30-second, expletive-laced tirade you had in your boss's office (two
weeks before the annual bonus review).
Stay
in your own lane, and avoid cutting off that old lady on your way home
from work.
Leave
for the office again, and this time remember to kiss your wife good-bye.
Move
those boxes away from the doggie-door so Fido can do his business in the
back yard instead of in front of the refrigerator.
Every
mistake can be corrected, every wrong righted, every daily event can be
meticulously scrutinized and rectified if necessary - upon further review
(and with a little help from life's rulebook).
The
Oakland Raiders were seventy-three seconds away from certain victory in
Saturday's playoff game with the New England Patriots after recovering
a fumble by Pat's quarterback Tom Brady.
The
play was reviewed and reversed. It wasn't a fumble after all. It was an
incomplete pass.
I'm
no fan of either team, and watching as an objective observer it looked
like a fumble to me. After seeing the replay, and listening to all the
post-game explanations, it still looked like a fumble to me. But what
do I know.
After
all, isn't it more prudent to let an experienced referee meticulously
scrutinize a single play - and ostensibly 'get it right' - than let the
natural course of live events dictate the outcome of the game?
I
mean isn't 'getting it right' the ultimate goal at any sporting event?
Remember,
it's not whether you win or lose, and it's not how you play the game,
it's how the game is perceived through a nine-inch monitor, in slow motion,
by the guy that 'got it wrong' in the first place that really matters.
I
only wish they could have developed this mentality (and the corresponding
technology) sooner.
Think
about all the memorable games in the history of the NFL that were marred
by bad officiating.
On
December 23, 1972, a rookie running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers named
Franco Harris caught a deflected ball at his shoestrings and scored a
last second, game winning touchdown in a playoff game against the Oakland
Raiders. The play is well known as "The Immaculate Reception".
But
who deflected the ball to Harris?
(Note:
in 1972, there was a league rule that a pass deflected by a member of
the offense could not be caught by another member of the offense).
Let's
go to the video tape, watch the play in slow motion from sixteen different
angles for seven of eight minutes, and 'get it right'.
The
pass was intended for Pittsburgh's Frenchy Fuqua. It's never been accurately
determined if Fuqua, or Oakland saftey Jack Tatum actually tipped the
pass. If Tatum tipped the ball, it's a Pittsburgh touchdown. But, if Fuqua
tipped the ball to Harris, by rule, it's an incomplete pass.
A
classic instant replay situation. It should have been the referee in the
replay booth that decided the outcome of this famous game, and not the
players on the field!
Had
it been determined, upon further review, that the ball deflected off Fuqua
and not Tatum, Oakland would have won the game and earned the right to
face Miami in the AFC Championship.
Of
course, if the call on the field had been reversed, the play would have
been forever known as "The Immaculate Correction".
Isn't
that what it's really all about - correcting our mistakes and 'getting
it right'?
What kind of message would we be sending to the next generation if we
allowed human error to contribute to the outcome of a football game?
When
I was a boy, my friends and I played a lot of football. There were no
referees, no cameras and no instant replay - just a lot of arguments.
Disputes were resolved in one of two ways:
A
fight would ensue - usually involving one or more of the Fitzpatick brothers.
Or,
more often than not, we'd do the next best thing to instant replay - "DO
OVER!"
Upon
further review, the latter was always a lot more fun and it kept the game
going 'till dinnertime.
*********************
|