I LOVE INSTANT REPLAY

By SCOTT FLEGAL, Flegal Law Office , PA

There is no doubt about it. I am a bit of a sports nut. I love baseball, football, basketball and sometimes even hockey. I am also one of the few and the proud - a horse racing fan. I spend a lot of time watching sports, and reading about them.

As a business lawyer and entrepreneur, I also pay attention to the business of sports. While my love of baseball and horse racing is unquestioned, from a business standpoint, they sure could be run better. The same can certainly be said for professional hockey and basketball. The truth is that in the world of professional sports, from a business standpoint the NFL is pretty much without peer.

There are a lot of reasons that the NFL is so successful. One reason is that the league has not been afraid to make changes that might improve the quality of its product. One of my favorite changes occurred a few years ago, when the league brought the instant replay rule into effect. Call me a weirdo if you must, but I have to admit that I love the NFL instant replay rule.

For those who may be unfamiliar with it, the instant replay rule allows each coach a certain number of opportunities during a game where he can "challenge" a referee's call on the field. To challenge a call, the coach simply tosses a beanbag-like thingy on the field before the next play is run. The beanbag signals the officials that a coach intends to challenge the call. Play is stopped, and the replay official reviews the challenged call on a monitor with the benefit of slow motion and multiple camera angles. Then, the official lets the crowd and the viewers at home know whether the call stands or whether it is reversed.

The instant replay rule is, I think, a rather brilliant example of a well-designed internal conflict management system at work. The NFL had several interests in mind when it devised the rule. The fans, and particularly those that wager on the games, certainly have an interest in having the right call made on the field. The coaches and players want to see the right call made. For the league, it was bad business to have the outcome of games impacted by referee mistakes. While all of these constituencies are interested in having the right calls made, television also had an interest in not having the process extend the length of broadcasts.

The NFL instant replay rule does a pretty good job of accommodating all of these interests. Challenges are permitted, but they are limited in number. This insures that the games do not disrupt the television networks' all-important schedule too frequently. The system permits the officials sufficient time to get the call right, but not so much time that the flow of the game is materially disrupted. I think the review process even generates additional drama for the fans. Fans sit on pins and needles, reviewing the play at home from the same angles the replay official sees, waiting for the result of the review. When the announcement of the review decision is made, the fan experiences either agony or ecstacy, depending on the situation. As a sports fan, what could be better?

Before the instant review rule, there was no process available to protest an official's call. Players and coaches threw temper tantrums. Announcers criticized and lamented officials' mistakes. The league reviewed referees' job performance after the fact, but that did little to meet the interests of its players, coaches and fans. So the league built a system to handle disputed calls, and for the most part, it works. I often cite the NFL instant replay rule when counseling business clients about conflict management. Many problems between partners either stem from or are exacerbated by poor communication. For a multitude of reasons, many partners have great difficulty saying to their partner, "hey, we need to talk about this problem." The issue is left alone, and often causes the relationship between the parties to decay. In a lot of cases, what they need is a process, or a system to resolve their issues, before they become serious.

Since I know the NFL's beanbag-triggered mechanism works, I have to confess to borrowing it to help clients with the design of their own dispute resolution mechanisms. In its simplest form, a dispute resolution system might work like this: if one of the parties has a partnership issue that needs to be discussed, he or she tosses the beanbag into the other party's office. As in the NFL, this triggers the start of a dispute resolution process. The partner that tossed the beanbag must then send an email to the other partner summarizing the issue to be discussed. An initial meeting is held to attempt to resolve the issue. If that meeting fails to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both parties, a follow-up meeting is scheduled a week later. If that meeting fails, then the company lawyer or another designated party is brought in to help facilitate a negotiated resolution of the issue.

The system is simple, but elegant. In most instances, the process results in a solution that satisfies both parties. But perhaps more importantly, the fact that a process exists for the parties to resolve their disputes tends to improve communication and make the partnership stronger. This is analogous to another impact of the rule on officiating in the NFL. The fact that calls are subject to immediate review and reversal has improved the overall officiating in the league.

The lesson is clear: when it comes to conflict or dispute management, the existence of a process for conflict resolution can in and of itself reduce conflict within an organization. The reduction of conflict leads to better relationships, less legal fees and a stronger bottom line for the company.