BACKGROUND

Michael Hiestand of the USA Today and other writers such as Chris Erskine and Jerry Crowe of the LA Times loved the concept as did Dan Gelston of the AP... all-waiting to write about the next step its official introduction into broadcasting. Soon what it all boiled down to was that it would strengthen the Instant Replay and have it keep up with where tech / web is going meaning that while the techniques used in deploying the Instant Replay are basically the same the instant employment of the athletes voices and form of expression are not being used and they should be! On October of 08 my fifth book was released: "Instant Replay the day that changed sports forever," and it inadvertently afforded me an opportunity to get a host of other opinions about the Talking Replay. The promotion of my book led to interviews on various stations from across the nation. So far WLW, KMA, KTAR, KFGO, KMOX, WCRX, KCKK, KRUF, WEAA, WBAP, WBFJ, 570 NEWS, KTLO, WBCP, WCCO, WSBT have questioned: "What's next for the Instant Replay?" I explained that almost all fans have grown up with the Instant Replay, and that all of these fans only know of one technique that someone (an announcer) talks over it. In fact, most fans can't put face to a player's voice or the way he expresses himself. Visually the Instant Replay has advanced with the use of technical breakthroughs, such as super slow motion, multiple isolations and electronic first down line, all of which has helped the Instant Replay to clarify itself visually but the next step needed is to provide a 'sensory element', to add voice to immediate playbacks.
Next came thoughts that a Talking Replay should only be used once or twice in a live game. perhaps, a couple of the original Instant Replays should be 'replayed again' as a Talking Replay thus allowing the crew time to cue it up on the servers.