Was It Really the “Play of the Game”?

You’ve seen it in just about every sporting event on TV: the Play of the Game. Usually it’s the “[insert sponsor name] Play of the Game”. Fundamentally, it’s a nice, potentially inoffensive diversion to offer up the fans. A defining moment of the event. Or is it?

Something that always astonishes me is when the announcers give a Play of the Game award in, say, the first quarter of a basketball game. Seriously? Did you just happen to jump ahead in time in your not-geeky-at-all DeLorean to see what play would define the game, jump back to the present, and just happen to know that nothing better is going to happen in the next three quarters? Then you are truly amazing and must be worshiped.

What’s that? The sponsor wanted an early mention but you didn’t have a commercial queued up? Ohhhh….

But aside from that, what tends to irk me the most is that the Play of the Game is often just the final play that gave a team the advantage to win. The play doesn’t have to be exciting or noteworthy in any other way. All that it needs to have done is given one team the win. This I have a problem with.

To me, the Play of the Game needs to be either the defining moment of play—the moment when the whims of fortune or misfortune turned the tide. It could be a flashy drive to the hoop, a remarkable sliding catch in the outfield, the one-handed over-the-should catch for the winning touchdown (I didn’t say it couldn’t be the last play of the game). But it could also be that twisted ankle that hobbled the star four minutes in. That blown call by a referee. The seemingly innocuous score where the body language of one team changed.

What we mostly get are same ol’ same ol’. I mean, a lot of baseball Play of the Game scenes are of some guy hitting a home run. It’s a shot that is entirely indistinguishable from almost all of the other home runs hit that day. Without added context, seeing this home run is meaningless. Plus, it’s visually unoriginal. Unless it’s the only run scored in an 18-inning game (and you still need that as context), it’s wholly unremarkable.

You see, the Play of the Game needs an editorial filter. Let’s use a globally recognizable example: While the “sports bra” pic of Brandi Chastain is iconic, and may be among the best photos of the 20th century, the Play of the Game of that Women’s World Cup final was likely Kristine Lilly on the goal line heading away a sure Chinese game-winning goal in overtime. While Chastain’s image is rightfully burned into our consciousness not only for that game but for the many larger social issues it forces us to think about, the fact is, for that game, Lilly’s focus on the goal’s near post is what turned the tide.

It’s like that throughout sports. The Play of the Game isn’t about the winning (though it helps). It’s about fortune…and yes, flash. Sometimes a play is so extraordinary that is must be acknowledged. But in the day-to-day grind that are sports seasons, it’s more than who took the last at-bat or who missed on the free-throw line. All I ask is that the givers of Play of the Game accolades: 1) wait until most/all of the game is over; 2) pick the moment based on something more than the last-second score. Make it worthy.