One of the greatest things about the internet is the ability to use it while watching sporting events. Commercial television hampers sports viewing by insisting on too many commercials during games. I can’t walk THAT slowly to the fridge for more beer, so I have to suffer through too many lame commercials. But with a laptop I don't. While watching game 6 of the ALCS, when commercials arrive, I can check email and the web.

However, law of unintended consequences being what it is, sometimes I come across dumb columns about sports, like this one by Phil Taylor.

Taylor argues there is no good reason to oppose instant reply in sports. He says

Yet there is still a school of thought that objects to the use of replay, for no good reason. There are those who contend that human error by referees and umpires is a part of sports, but that's not quite correct. Unavoidable, uncorrectable human error by officials is a part of sports, but the errors that can be fixed, should be. Arguing against instant replay to correct calls is like arguing against erasers on pencils.

Some so-called traditionalists resist the notion of replay, arguing that our games have survived for decades without high-tech help, but technology has improved the equipment athletes play with, the arenas and stadiums they play in and the training that allows them to play better. There's no reason it shouldn't be used to improve the officiating in the games they play.

Part of sports' appeal is the certainty they offer. Teams win or lose. Players are out or safe. When bad calls are allowed to stand it erodes some of that certainty, and that's a far worse thing for the game, any game, than taking a few moments out to check the instant replay. It doesn't take a second look to see that.

This is so goofy on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin, but let's start with, well, the game I'm watching.

The Cards had 1st and 2nd nobody out and a ground ball to second. The Astros second baseman clearly missed the tag of the Cards' Molina running to 2nd, but Molina's large frame blocked out a good view for the ump, so he botched the call and called Molina out. It was, with replay, an obvious bad call. And there will be lots of other bad calls in this series and future series. But I have no problem with this. In fact, I rather like it.

I hate instant replay for a lot of reasons, but primarily because it slows the pace of play, by a LOT. Football replay is infuriating. Pro football games are glacial, and replay makes it worse, without a significant boost in strategic intrigue (will Dick Vermeil croak in the time it takes for the zebras to get out of that weird voting-booth-replay-thing, or will Gibbs beat him to the punch?)

What's especially annoying about Taylor's argument is the assertion that what's appealing about sports is the certainty they offer. I don't even know what that means. Physics offers some certainty. Mathematics. Maybe chemistry. But sports? Sports are interesting precisely because there is no certainty. Ask Yogi Berra. No one ever, while waiting in a physics lab for water to boil at 100 degrees, said It Ain't Boiled, Till It's Boiled, because we know that the water is gonna boil when the thermometer gets to 100. It's certain. But in sports, It Ain't Over Till It's Over. Which is what's great about it. There are no certainties. Ask Albert Pujols and the Cards with two outs in the 9th. That's why more people watch ESPN than NOVA. As for why people read Phil Taylor, I've no idea.

With few exceptions, sports columnists suck. Why don't sports editors insist on more from their columnists? I can't believe people like Taylor can even make a living. Does this make me a 'so-called traditionalist'?