My post suggesting de novo review of instant replays led to typically insightful posts from Howard here and from Ilya Som
Comments
I like that last quotation (I had forgotten about it) because it perfectly captures the obsession with replay. It also points out an important difference between replay and appellate review that might explain the absence of de novo review: Replay is entirely about factual determinations–safe/out, down/not down, fumble/no fumble–not interpretation of legal rules. Appellate review ordinarily is about law, not fact, with factual questions being the ones subject to more-deferential review. I think we have lost faith in the ability of officials to find facts and we want replay to do it for them.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Dec 2, 2009 6:29:01 PM