Instant replay comes under fire a lot in the NFL. Whether it's an inadvertent whistle that makes the recovery of a fumble moot, or the league's scattershot rules on what is or isn't reviewable, or because a perfectly obvious reversal might not be allowed because the coach has already thrown his red hanky onto the field too many times (and for just reasons), there's a lot of room for improvement in the system.
Take yesterday's bizarre field goal by the Browns, in which the ball bounced through the uprights, hit the stanchion and bounced back out. That play, one that would decide the game, is not subject to review. One of the reasons for this is because even on video, many extra points and field goals sail so high over the tops of the goalposts that it is impossible to determine if they are good or not with the naked eye. One might ask why the league doesn't just extend the posts higher to prevent these all-too-frequent occurrences, but that's a discussion for another day. The important thing is that the officials got the call right. The ball ricocheted off what may be henceforth called "Dawson's Crook" (the stanchion), but it clearly went through the uprights.
To me, it appeared as though the refs were confused about the ruling, as if they didn't know what the rules stated about such a rebound. But whether the referees knew the rule and got on the phone to verify where the ball hit or didn't know the rule and were asking for some help looking up the rule, the important thing is that the integrity of the game was upheld by making the right call. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
In the Seattle-San Francisco game last Monday night, the last play of the half was a Hail Mary pass. The ball sailed 45 yards through the air, and as the clock hit triple zeroes, the ball found Arnaz Battle's hands. He got knocked out of bounds, and the refs signaled the end of the half. The only problem with this play was that Battle didn't catch the ball. A quick look at the replay showed the ball slipping through his hands and landing on the ground, right in front of the apparently oblivious referee, who was too busy watching to see if Battle's feet were in bounds to notice. This play was in the last two minutes of the half, and only the booth (not Seattle) could initiate a review. It was also the last play of the half, so as far as the outcome of the game was concerned, this play was irrelevant.
It wasn't irrelevant in fantasy football. Just ask my good friend, Harry Himalayas, back with yet another unfortunate crisis. "One of the owners in my league lost his game by three points last week. His opponent had a lot of players on bye and had to start Arnaz Battle, who had a decent game, scoring 11 points. But this owner is now complaining that Battle was given credit for a catch he did not actually make. He showed me a video of the play and demanded I deduct five points from his opponent, as our rules clearly state that players are to be given '1 point for each catch they make and 1 point for every 10 yards they gain from these catches.' He says it is obvious that Battle didn't make the catch, so he shouldn't get the points. What should I do?"
Harry is indeed in a pickle. However, there's an obvious course of action for him to follow. He must go with the official NFL stance on the stats. The ball was ruled a catch on the field and so the stats must stand, even if this catch was, in reality, nothing but fantasy. To choose to do anything else would be sheer folly. You can't allow owners to have their own version of instant replay challenges, asking you to come over to their house to watch the play on TiVo and to make your own rulings accordingly. You must simply accept what the stats are and live with the results. But there is another problem that arises from that decision. What official results are you going to use?
Imagine this: You check your league site on Tuesday and see your team won last week by one point, and you're thrilled. Your waiver claims are on Wednesday, and they go in reverse order of record. On Thursday, you find out that you've missed out on Chester Taylor by one waiver spot because your win gave you the fifth waiver priority. However, when you check the standings on Friday, you find something very disturbing. It now says you lost your game. You call your commish to find out what the heck is going on. He tells you that on Thursdays, Elias Sports Bureau announces "adjustments" to the official stats. Their analysts have reviewed the tape of every game and adjusted a yard here or a yard there, and in your case, they took a sack (worth two points) away from your Giants defense and made it a Tony Romo running play. (Of course, Elias can't go back and say that Arnaz Battle didn't catch the ball, even though he clearly didn't. It doesn't have that kind of power. Just remember to demand an asterisk when Arnaz Battle breaks the NFL career receiving record by 20 yards in his final game in 2023.)
So not only did you lose the game, but because the waivers were done before this adjustment had been made, you also lost out on Chester Taylor and his incredible Week 11 performance. This is outrageous!
In poker, there's a concept called "subsequent significant action." What it basically means is that a mistake can be fixed as long as nothing important has happened after the mistake. If it does, then the mistake stays. For example, you start the betting at $10. The next player raises it to $15, and the player after him goes all-in. Everybody else folds, including the second bettor, but you call his bluff and are in line to win the hand. Then someone points out that the $15 bet was an illegal raise, that the lowest legal bet there would have been $20. That second bettor should have either matched your $10 bet or raised to $20. The player who went all-in now is saying, "Well, that bet was illegal, so we have to go back and make that guy fold or bet $20, and then I get to decide what I want to do. I think I'll fold instead of going all-in." No. His bet and your call were subsequent significant actions to the illegal bet, and so, for this hand, that $15 bet is allowed.
The same philosophy should apply to fantasy football. If you make waiver picks based on the results of the weekend games, that's a subsequent significant action. You shouldn't go changing the results after the fact. The win should stand, and Elias' changes should be ignored. Now, if your site does make these changes for you, and you have no control over whether or not this happens, then you should go back and change the waiver-wire picks. As long as the next week's games haven't started yet, then no significant action has occurred and it is only fair not to double-penalize this owner.
But if it happens this week, with Thursday games likely starting before the Elias changes make a mockery of your league standings, then it looks as though you'll not be on the list of people receiving thanks in this owner's house.
All rise! The Court is adjourned!
A.J. Mass is a fantasy football, baseball and college basketball analyst for ESPN.com. You can e-mail him here.