THW replay international sporting events if an extreme umpiring error affects the result.

Without further delay, the rebuttal: "Bad calls are a part of almost every single game or match ever played at both the professional and minor levels."-yes. However, what we are talking about here is such an extreme error that actually affects the result of the game. This only happens in rare situations. "Referees are only human, have limited awareness, and do their best to make the proper call. Just because an umpire called a foul ball fair or vice versa doesn't mean that any ethics are being violated."-the fact that we later see that an error occurred and do nothing to penalize it is the moment ethics get crashed over! Sure, a referee can't see everything that goes on, but if he, along with the highest officials of the sport later witness such an unethical play and turn the other cheek on it, this is where we violate the fair-play and sportsmanship, demonstrating that it doesn't matter whether you play fair or not, AS LONG AS you do not get caught. Hence, ethics are violated. "a situation I can think of where ethics and sports are involved are when referees do things like bet on the games that they're reffing. It's sad and unethical, and those people should be punished and fired..."-ah. What my opponent has obviously shown here is her approval of punishment when unethical behaviour and sports are linked! She even suggests more fierce punishment - firing. So what I need to do is only to prove that not reacting to an extreme error is unethical (see arguments 1-3), and we should be on the same page. In all fairness, the end of this sentence goes -"but I don't think there should be a re-match because of it." By firing the people responsible in a situation you presented, the consequences would still remain. The morality would still be destroyed. By having a rematch, we are allowing both sides to face off EQUALLY, and preserve the moral. "Refs are typically unbiased and have no incentive to blow calls. In fact, quite the opposite: bad umpires won't have jobs... If a ref consistently makes bad or missed calls, they will be unemployed. So, it's in their best interest to keep a good eye on the game..."-I don't see how this has anything to do with this debate. We are not talking about whether a referee is making intentional unethical decisions, or simply whether a ref is a good one or not- we are talking about the situation in which an "error" happens. Deffiniton of "error":-a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention- So sure, bad umpires won't have jobs, good ones will. But errors CAN STILL HAPPEN. This is what we are debating about, not the competence of a ref. "and though players screw up in almost every game, most of the time it is rectified and addressed."-thank you for proving my point. Yes, MOST OF THE TIME screw-ups are addressed. These are the times they ARE NOT! So, my opponent obviously agrees screw-ups should be penalized. So far, I do not see many distinctions between the two of us :) "Despite all the glamour, professional sports are just GAMES. The reason they're in business and so popular are because of the market demand; in other words, professional sports is a business. I'm sure there's a lot of heart and passion amongst some of the players and coaches, but at the end of the day, it's about a pay check."-couldn't disagree more. So what you are saying is that nobody really cares whether (or better yet-how) they win or lose, as long as they get paid. Not true. Professionals also want to see their efforts and hard work be rewarded. They want to have a fulfilling career and a sense of accomplishment as much as the next guy. Not penalizing these errors would mean taking away that opportunity from them. Sports are business, yes. But sports are also about ambition. Heart and sacrifices of every player. Not to get too pathetic here, my point is you can't just generalize sports as emotionless, numb ball-passing. If it was like that, nobody would come to the games. Soccer players wouldn't take their clothes off after scoring even though they know they are going to be penalized for it. "A 30-second slot for a commercial being played during the Super Bowl costs 2.6 million dollars [1]. If a bad call was made (and for whatever reason not reviewed until after the game) that changed the outcome of the Super Bowl, it's ridiculous to think that a game of that caliber would be replayed."-these types of games are EXACTLY the ones that should be replayed! If someone wins the Super Bowl due to foul play, it needs to be replayed! Because they are not the best team in the League! They don't deserve the bragging rights for the whole year. FORGET the commercials (that's right, I said it). Some money might be lost due to replaying of the game. But, first of all, we are talking about a higher value than money here. Ethics and moral outweigh the material costs. And second, same commercials can be replayed once more, so what? That does not matter as much. Fairness>money. "Mistakes and bad calls are a part of every game. Whether it's intentional or not, breaking the rules is something that happens frequently and that's just the nature of sports in general"-breaking the rules is in the nature of sports? How so? And mistakes and bad calls are a part of every game, yes. And they need to be addressed. You said it yourself. "Part of what distinguishes good players and coaches from bad ones are the ones that can play through adversity and adjust to game situations"-what you did here is accepted my argument that if one team plays unethically, the other one will "ADJUST TO GAME SITUATION"- and play like that themselves-therefore, ethics of sports will be more harmed. "Over the years we've come up with ways to avoid bad calls ruining games, such as having more refs, utilizing replays via video footage, allowing challenges of certain calls, etc"-all true. Still, again, we are talking about the times these tools did not help. I am proposing the one that would. The argument of "1d. CON: Unfair Advantage" is completely to my benefit. See, we are letting one team have the unfair advantage by NOT replaying the game, not by replaying it. The team that's NOT penalized for their misbehaviour is in "1d. CON: Unfair Advantage" "If we were to replay every game with a bad ref call, we'd never get through a game let alone a season"-again, only the EXTREME UMPIRING ERRORS are discussed here. They are hardly a part of every game. Therefore, the plan is completely practical. 2."in the 1982 World Cup Semi Final, German goal keeper Schumacher committed a horrible and obvious foul...what about the infamous Diego Maradona's "hand of God"...There's even entire books dedicated to blown calls"-EXACTLY. These statements explicitly show these kind of errors negatively impact the vision of sports, and its popularity, despite the decade in which they happened! So 30 years later, we still remember the foul plays, the mistakes that weren't addressed, and we condemn them. There would be much less regrets if the match was simply replayed. 3."I don't care how big of a fan you are - to engage in violent behavior because your team lost is unethical, immature and deserving of punishment... If fans are going to act like savages on behalf of their favorite team, then clearly they don't respect themselves, the players or even the "ethics of sports" enough."- SURE. Still, none of this shows they will NOT engage in violent behaviour. Therefore, the argument stands. 4.Con thinks kids will see how cheaters are exposed in the media, so it won't affect them negatively. Quite the contrary-the media will only publicize the fact players got away with cheating, therefore encouraging them to do the same. "Television is one of the most prevalent media influences in kids' lives"-http://www.media-awareness.ca... Looking forward to hearing the rebuttal soon.