By Dave Diamond

Tom Hanks made a great point in the sports classic “A League of Their Own” while pretending to be a drunk, broken-down ballplayer. He said “anything worth doing is worth doing right.”

It makes perfect sense. Why bother engaging in an activity if the effort is lacking? Imagine a student completing only three quarters of a term paper. What’s the point?

That being said, the NFL has two choices on what to do with its replay system: use it to its fullest potential or get rid of it completely. The system, as is, is a joke. It is faulty, confusing and inconsistent. How is that different from the referees already on the field?

For example, look at the way the Jet game ended in Cleveland. Chad Pennington found Chris Baker in the end zone on fourth-and-game. Baker leaped, gained possession inbounds and was pushed out of bounds by Cleveland defenders before he had the chance to get his feet in the end zone. By rule, that is a touchdown.

The line judge immediately called the pass incomplete. Fair enough. The referees then decided to concur. Here is a basic transcript of that meeting:

Referee: “Are you sure?”

Line Judge: “I could be wrong.”

Referee (to everyone else): “Can we review that?”

No answer.

They had no clue. Just like every officiating crew in the league, it was apparent they did not have the slightest idea whether or not the play was allowed to be reviewed as called. The fact that coaches and players have been forced to deal with this incompetence for eight years is stunning. And owners will never vote against it because their team might get lucky one year and benefit from it. For example, the Patriots and the infamous tuck rule that led to their first Super Bowl title in 2001.

The explanation referee Mike Carey established was that Baker could not have made the catch inbounds. And because it was a judgment call, the play was not reviewable under the current instant replay system. The stink of the situation, however, is the embarrassing exhales and grins from the Browns, who suddenly realize they need an extremely good break to actually win.

How is “the play was a judgment call” a valid explanation for a system that is supposed to get the calls right? What referee decision isn’t a judgment call? The ground caused a fumble, the pass was complete, the player stepped out of bounds, these are all plays that can be reviewed, yet, are also judgment calls. It looks like the league uses the “judgment call” excuse as a way to protect its referees and, amazingly, nobody questions it these days.

There is no reason to have an instant replay system that nullifies the correct call in favor of protecting the wrong ones. The use of replay was supposed to solve all this controversy, not create more. When is it going to be enough? Two years from now will the referee announce “the ruling on the field stands because we don’t want to be embarrassed?”

Having a flawed system like this made the outcome of the Jets-Browns game, as well as countless others in the past few seasons, more unbearable than if the game were played ten years ago. Back then, fans lived with the referee’s decision because there was nothing else they could do. Now we can make things right, but again, it’s up to the referee to decide whether or not he wants to be wrong on national television.

Sounds like unnecessary roughness to me.

Jets fans have seen the instant replay highs (Testaverde in ’98) and lows.