The NFL got one thing unquestionably right when it embraced instant replay: getting more calls correct is better than getting them wrong.

Nobody wants a season, a playoff berth or a Super Bowl decided because an obvious mistake couldn't be corrected. Technology has spared teams and fans from countless blown calls, and that's a good thing.

But somewhere along the way, replay stopped being a safety net and became an obsession. I don’t mind replay, but it shouldn’t be the end all, be all when it comes to sports. 

The league doesn't need to eliminate replay. It needs to put it on a clock.

Every replay review should have a strict 60-second limit.

If officials can't find indisputable visual evidence within one minute, the ruling on the field should stand. Simple.

Fans sitting in the stadium and millions watching on television shouldn't have to wait three or four minutes while officials examine freeze frames from six different camera angles looking for microscopic evidence. At that point, replay isn't correcting obvious mistakes. It's searching for perfection that often doesn't exist.

And here's the irony: even after all that time, replay still gets calls wrong.

We've all watched reviews where half the audience is convinced the officials missed the obvious, while the other half can't understand how the ruling was overturned. Slow motion doesn't eliminate judgment. It simply gives officials more opportunities to second-guess themselves.

The issue isn't unique to football.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup showcased both the strengths and frustrations of video review. VAR overturned legitimate mistakes involving offside calls and penalties, but it also produced lengthy delays that interrupted the rhythm of matches. Worse yet, some controversial decisions remained controversial even after several minutes of review. Fans still argued. Players still protested. Coaches still questioned the process.

Technology improved accuracy without eliminating disagreement.

That's because perfection is impossible.

There are plays where the ball disappears beneath a pile. There are catches where no camera angle definitively shows control. There are soccer fouls that remain subjective regardless of how many replays are available.

At some point, officials simply have to make a decision and move on.

A 60-second timer would force exactly that.

If replay officials know they have one minute, they'll focus on finding clear evidence rather than searching endlessly for another angle that probably doesn't exist. If the proof isn't obvious, then by definition it isn't indisputable.

That philosophy also restores an important principle that has quietly disappeared: respect for the officials on the field.

Referees are hired because they're among the best in the world at making split-second decisions. Replay should exist to fix obvious misses—not to referee every play twice.

The NFL has spent years trying to shorten games and improve pace. This is an easy place to start.

Fans don't expect perfection. They never have.

They simply want obvious mistakes corrected without bringing the game to a standstill.

Replay has unquestionably made sports fairer. That's worth preserving.

But replay was designed to serve the game—not become the game.

Sixty seconds is enough time to find a clear mistake.

If you can't find it by then, it probably isn't there.