Instant headache: Replay needs a rewind

Goal or no goal?

Catch or no catch?

Lately, those questions are being asked far too often in the NHL and NFL as the leagues are having an awfully difficult time determining two of the more important - and basic - parts of their sports.

This recent phenomenon got its roots when instant replay was introduced to the NFL some 30 years ago. It eventually left the game for some time but has been back in place since 1999, with plenty of examples - the Calvin Johnson TD-no TD catch vs. the Bears in 2010 certainly being one - of what drives fans, coaches and players absolutely nuts about what is and isn't a catch.

Now, with the NHL introducing a coach's challenge this season, fans, coaches and players are experiencing the same confusion. The Blackhawks have been denied goals twice in the last week because referees determined that players interfered with the goalie.

Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville was so steamed Tuesday that he took one question about Brandon Mashinter's first-period goal being overturned, and he abruptly left the media room after a 2-0 loss to San Jose.

Instant replay was put in place for one reason: to correct egregious errors. A call on the ice or on the football field should stand unless there is overwhelming video evidence to overturn it.

Overwhelming evidence.

Not, "Oh, it looked like the goalie might have been interfered with" or "Maybe the ball was slightly moving in the receiver's hands as he tapped his second foot down before going out of bounds."

After the Hawks' loss Tuesday, Comcast SportsNet analyst and former player Jamal Mayers made one of the more salient points I heard in the Mashinter aftermath in which Dennis Rasmussen was ruled to have interfered with Sharks goalie Martin Jones.

"When you slow things down in slow motion," Mayers said, "the game ends up not being a hockey play. You have to watch it, in my opinion, in real time. … When you slow it down, so many different factors come into play and it no longer is a hockey play, unfortunately."

So true, especially when you look at that play.

Eddie Olczyk made another comment that struck home with me when he said both sides could make a case for whether Mashinter's goal should stand.

And if that's true, it's a good goal. Again, there was no overwhelming evidence that showed egregious goalie interference.

Of course, it's impossible to ask coaches and players to be objective when asking for their opinions because if the situation were reversed and it was the Sharks who had a goal taken away, you can bet Quenneville and Hossa would have said "good call."

So here's the solution: Take the human element out of the equation and don't allow for plays in the crease to be challenged by coaches.

Every referee has a different interpretation of the rules, so what they saw on the ice - as Mayers said, in "real time" - should stand. Unless the refs themselves want to take another look at it.

Reserve the coach's challenge for offsides plays only because in those cases, it's black and white. Either a guy is or isn't offsides.

In both hockey and football, if the powers that be would remember why replay exists in the first place - to correct obvious mistakes - it would make everyone much happier.

In an instant.

• Follow John on Twitter @johndietzdh