The Shadow-gloom and Weight of the Sacred

In my previous post, I gave my opinion concerning the Calvin Johnson non-catch in last Sunday's Lions-Bears football game. More specifically, I criticized the unfair and inconsistent ways in which a touchdown is awarded between "breaking the plane" and catching the ball in the end zone. Today, though, my thoughts go in a different direction. It is not the hypocrisy of the rules of football that I want to discuss, but the role of the referee.

I can remember a couple of years ago when I first heard the language of a required "additional football move" after a football player catches the ball in order to determine that the player had in fact attained possession of the ball. I don't remember exactly when this rule was first added, and I'm not in the mood to try and find out, but I think it is a relatively recent development (within the last decade). I suppose that, in order to do this post justice, I really should look it up, as well as the motivation for adding such language to the rule book of football. I simply don't have the will this evening, but I don't think my assumptions are all that far off the mark.

The rule change for an "additional football move" is, I believe, an attempt to further limit the human factor of sports officiating. This isn't nearly as controversial in football as it is in baseball, which only recently added instant replay for three specific situations (to determine if a ball left the park, to determine if a fan interfered with the ball, to determine if a ball is fair or foul). The NBA also began using instant replay in some instances, but I don't think it was too fiercely opposed. Earlier this year, Armando Galaragga of the Detroit Tigers would have pitched a perfect game, but umpire Jim Joyce made an errant call at the end of the game resulting in a run for the Tigers's opponent. It was heartbreaking for baseball fans because a perfect (despite having had two of them this season) really is a rare treat. Instant replay--removal of the human element--would have easily corrected this issue. Still, baseball purists tout the tradition of the game and its human element. I hated that Galaragga lost the perfect game; I really wanted instant replay in baseball so such situations could be avoided in the future. But, after seeing what's happened to NFL football, especially this Calvin Johnson catch, I think that I'll take my chances with the human element.

By adding the requirement of an "additional football move" after a catch, the NFL is attempting to limit possible error by humans. Rules, after all, can't make mistakes. The NFL is trying to state as explicitly as possible what must occur in order to determine that a ball is caught and if the criteria is not met, then it isn't a catch. Isn't this what any rule does? It limits the need for thought. The referee doesn't have to think about and assess the situation. The rules do that for him. The referee just needs to enforce the rules. Those who have followed the story know that NFL executives have praised the officiating team of last Sunday's Lions-Bears game for making the right call. That is, the officiating team has been praised for properly enforcing the rules. They've been praised for not thinking.

This is not to say that there is no human element in football. It is simply to state that the Calvin Johnson non-catch is not an error due to the human element. Armondo Galaragga was robbed of a perfect game because of the human element; Calving Johnson was robbed of a touchdown catch, and the Lions of a win, because of the NFL's attempt rid the game of the human element. Had the human element been enforced, had the rule not been in existence, the Lions would have won.