Instant replay is good for sports -- all sports

	Would instant replay have changed the outcome of last Saturday's USC-Notre Dame game? We'll never know now. Damian Strohmeyer/SI
	MAILBAG Phil Taylor will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

There's nothing wrong with a good debate. In fact, we here at the Hot Button love an honest difference of opinion -- Peyton Manning or Tom Brady (we say Brady), DH or no DH (no DH), Laker Girls or Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders (there is no wrong answer) -- but the one topic on which we will tolerate no dissent is instant replay. It is good. It is necessary. It is time.

Every major sport can benefit from the use of replay. The NFL has figured this out with its use of the replay challenge and so, to a lesser extent has the NBA, which allows referees to go to the videotape to resolve certain calls involving the clock. College football uses instant replay in some games but not in others, which was unfortunately the case in last weekend's epic USC-Notre Dame battle. Here and there, officials are allowed to use technology to help them make the indisputably correct call. The only question is, Why would anyone object to this?

Replay can't be used to confirm the accuracy of every call, of course. No one wants to see umpires checking the TV monitors to determine whether or not a batter checked his swing, or basketball refs disappearing into the production truck to figure out whether the shooter was fouled on his jump shot. There are certain calls -- the majority of them, in fact -- that are rightly left to the discretion of the official. But some plays are "yes or no" calls. Did the runner beat the throw to first base? Did the serve hit the line or not? Was the fly ball down the line fair or foul? Did the puck cross the goal line? For those calls, checking the replay when there is a dispute is the only logical thing to do.

Professional sports officials are remarkably good, but not infallible, as we have been reminded in recent days. Replay might have overturned the controversial call in Game 2 of the ALCS, when umpire Doug Eddings ruled A.J. Pierzynski of the White Sox safe at first because he wasn't tagged after the third strike wasn't caught cleanly. If Eddings had been allowed to see the same slow motion footage of the play that viewers at home saw, he probably would have seen that the pitch never did hit the dirt, and the course of the entire series might have been changed.

If the officials at the Notre Dame-USC game had been able to look at the television monitors on Trojans quarterback Matt Leinart's fumble out of bounds in the final seconds, they might have spotted the ball on the two- or three-yard line instead of at the one. That might have forced the Trojans to play for overtime instead of having Leinart sneak in for the winning touchdown, and USC might not be at the top of the BCS polls today.

Yet there is still a school of thought that objects to the use of replay, for no good reason. There are those who contend that human error by referees and umpires is a part of sports, but that's not quite correct. Unavoidable, uncorrectable human error by officials is a part of sports, but the errors that can be fixed, should be. Arguing against instant replay to correct calls is like arguing against erasers on pencils.

Some so-called traditionalists resist the notion of replay, arguing that our games have survived for decades without high-tech help, but technology has improved the equipment athletes play with, the arenas and stadiums they play in and the training that allows them to play better. There's no reason it shouldn't be used to improve the officiating in the games they play.

Part of sports' appeal is the certainty they offer. Teams win or lose. Players are out or safe. When bad calls are allowed to stand it erodes some of that certainty, and that's a far worse thing for the game, any game, than taking a few moments out to check the instant replay. It doesn't take a second look to see that.