Why Football is Different from the Law
Recently, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, applying yet another sports and law analogy, asked: Why aren’t instant replays reviewed de novo? That is, why is “conclusive” or “indisputable” proof required to reverse a call on the field? Why not take a fresh new look at the play when reviewing video?
I’m probably in a very small minority, but I think the question answers itself: because sports plays need to be called 100% impartially, not necessarily 100% accurately. The officials on the field are human. Absent bias (say, towards the home team) or outright corruption, a call should not be reversed unless the video evidence is “conclusive.”
So, to some extent, I take issue with the analogy applied in the WSJ article. However, the post is actually quite educational and presents the subject matter in a clever way. I’d also consider it helpful, since the role of the appellate courts is not well-understood among non-lawyers.
I just wouldn’t take any similarity between the courts and football - - or any sport - - too far.
