There should be a new rule in the NBA next year

[NYCKingsFan]

Ok, I'm really pissed off. First, the Amare block and then last night's CLEARLY goaltending by Dampier. This is an excerpt from Espn.com's recap: According to the NBA rule book, goaltending occurs if a defender touches "a ball after it has touched and part of the backboard above ring level, whether the ball is considered on its upward or downward flight," as long as it has a chance to go in. It was a clear goaltend and it wasn't called in the crucial last 30 seconds of a game. Stemming from the Phoenix game and now this, it warrants a new rule.
The NBA should allow each team one chance each to call for officials to look at replay during the final minute or 30 seconds of a game. In the NFL, coaches are able to contest calls and call for replay, so why not in the NBA? So, each team has a chance to request replay during any moment of the last minute or 30 secs of the game. Once they use that request for replay, that's it. However, the current replays of time clock issues during last few secs of game should stay. I think this would greatly help out teams and make officials call at least one guaranteed dead-on right call during a game.
For instance, if this rule was in effect, last night Adelmann could've requested replay and officials would make the goaltend call. So, what are your thoughts on this?

 

[TheSerbianQueen]

It would certainly change many things......

It's just sad to see the same team get screwed over the SAME call..... in three day span.

 

[bibbyweb]

Thats a good idea. Should be implemented as soon as possible.

 

[Bricklayer]

Third thread where this has been mentioned, so third time I raise this objection:

How does that work in a game like basketball without constant breaks int he action? So Dampier blocks the shot + it lands in his teammate's hands + he races up court to score.

Ok...so do you get to stop play before the score on the othe end to call for a review? If you do you and it turns out the block was good, then the Mavs have just been screwed out of a fast break thhey should have had. On the other hand, if you let play go on and the Mavs score and THEN you call for the review, what happenes if it turns out it WAS goaltending? Sure, give us the points. But then the Mavs never would have HAD the fastbreak. Do they get to keep it? And from their perspective if they were down by more points they likely would have run a different play, so its not fair either way.

NFL replay works smoothly because play is naturally broken up into a sereis of brief bursts of action whihc pauses inbetween. Basketball doesn't share that.

I'm open to suggestions about how this could work -- would be great to have. But the game does not seem replay friendly.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Two complaints about all this talk of rule change:
1. A Brick has so eloquently stated it is compleetly unworkable given the nature of the game.

2. If (and I say if) the Refs really do desire to favor a team, they will just find other call/no call situations to interfear.

Now my personal belife is that the after Tuesday nights tirade by the Kings the NBA refs lost any motivation to give them the benifit of calls. I hope this was a one time payback but I fear this will be a trend forat least the remander of the season.

 

[quick dog]

Changes in NBA officiating simply have to be made. The NBA will not thrive if the outcomes of important games continue to be determined by referees. Game-flow must be subordinate to fairness and accuracy. The public will not stand for capricious officiating.

 

[Padrino]

Third thread where this has been mentioned, so third time I raise this objection:

How does that work in a game like basketball without constant breaks int he action? So Dampier blocks the shot + it lands in his teammate's hands + he races up court to score.

Ok...so do you get to stop play before the score on the othe end to call for a review? If you do you and it turns out the block was good, then the Mavs have just been screwed out of a fast break thhey should have had. On the other hand, if you let play go on and the Mavs score and THEN you call for the review, what happenes if it turns out it WAS goaltending? Sure, give us the points. But then the Mavs never would have HAD the fastbreak. Do they get to keep it? And from their perspective if they were down by more points they likely would have run a different play, so its not fair either way.

NFL replay works smoothly because play is naturally broken up into a sereis of brief bursts of action whihc pauses inbetween. Basketball doesn't share that.

I'm open to suggestions about how this could work -- would be great to have. But the game does not seem replay friendly.

i think this idea presented could work, but solely in last-second situations. obviously, ya bring up a good point that it would be difficult to do because of the fast-paced nature of basketball. maybe if a ref blows (or doesnt blow) a whistle, say, inside of 30 seconds, and a team believes there is reasonable doubt to a call, then they can challenge (for lack of a better term). each team could be awarded one challenge to be used inside of 30 seconds (when every play and call in a close game matters). this would be very easy to implement in cases like the amare stoudemire goaltend, because it occured as time expired. just like with clock issues, the refs could review the play to see if they made the correct call (or non-call). in the case of the dampier goaltend, yah, it would be more difficult. but, even in the nfl, if (lets say) a ball is fumbled and returned for a touchdown, the points are up in the air when the challenge flag comes down. if the ball-carrier was, lets say, down before the fumble occured, and the call was reversed, then the points are revoked. same thing could work for the nba. this cant be done all game, cuz there are waaaaay too many close calls and referee intervention in a basketball game. but if they could figure out some way to do it in "clutch" situations, then i think the nba on the whole would benefit.

 

[VF21]

Third thread where this has been mentioned, so third time I raise this objection:

How does that work in a game like basketball without constant breaks int he action? So Dampier blocks the shot + it lands in his teammate's hands + he races up court to score.

Ok...so do you get to stop play before the score on the othe end to call for a review? If you do you and it turns out the block was good, then the Mavs have just been screwed out of a fast break thhey should have had. On the other hand, if you let play go on and the Mavs score and THEN you call for the review, what happenes if it turns out it WAS goaltending? Sure, give us the points. But then the Mavs never would have HAD the fastbreak. Do they get to keep it? And from their perspective if they were down by more points they likely would have run a different play, so its not fair either way.

NFL replay works smoothly because play is naturally broken up into a sereis of brief bursts of action whihc pauses inbetween. Basketball doesn't share that.

I'm open to suggestions about how this could work -- would be great to have. But the game does not seem replay friendly.

Okay, I'm going off the top of my head but I'll give it a try anyway:

Let's say the blocked shot comes at 57 seconds. The ball goes to the Mavericks, who take it and score. There are now 45 seconds on the clock. (Note: Times used are simply for purpose of example.)

If a challenge-rule is in effect, Adelman - at the time of the blocked shot - would hit a light or something to indicate he wants to challenge the call/non-call. Play would not be stopped but would continue until either the opponent makes a goal OR the Kings acquire the ball through some other means. At that point, an official time out would be called for the review of the play.

The officials would review the play. If they find that Adelman was in fact correct, the Kings would be awarded the basket and the Mavericks would get the ball with 57 seconds left on the clock. NOTHING that had happened after the play that was reviewed would count. If, on the other hand, they review the play and find it correct, the team making the challenge would be charged for the time-out and play would resume at the point it was at when the official time out was called. 45 seconds left on the clock and the Mavericks bucket counted.

I don't mean this to be perfect, but I do think it's an indication that they could come up with something

The main point is that a team could make a challenge without stopping the flow of the game. They would not be doing them haphazardly because of the provision of being charged a time-out if their challenge is not upheld. The other team is not penalized unfairly because if the challenge isn't upheld, nothing is taken from them.

 

[uolj]

Okay, I'm going off the top of my head but I'll give it a try anyway:

Let's say the blocked shot comes at 57 seconds. The ball goes to the Mavericks, who take it and score. There are now 45 seconds on the clock. (Note: Times used are simply for purpose of example.)

If a challenge-rule is in effect, Adelman - at the time of the blocked shot - would hit a light or something to indicate he wants to challenge the call/non-call. Play would not be stopped but would continue until either the opponent makes a goal OR the Kings acquire the ball through some other means. At that point, an official time out would be called for the review of the play.

The officials would review the play. If they find that Adelman was in fact correct, the Kings would be awarded the basket and the Mavericks would get the ball with 57 seconds left on the clock. NOTHING that had happened after the play that was reviewed would count. If, on the other hand, they review the play and find it correct, the team making the challenge would be charged for the time-out and play would resume at the point it was at when the official time out was called. 45 seconds left on the clock and the Mavericks bucket counted.

I don't mean this to be perfect, but I do think it's an indication that they could come up with something

The main point is that a team could make a challenge without stopping the flow of the game. They would not be doing them haphazardly because of the provision of being charged a time-out if their challenge is not upheld. The other team is not penalized unfairly because if the challenge isn't upheld, nothing is taken from them.

That's good, and better than what I was going to come up with.

The only thing I would add would be to allow the team that has the ball but did not make the challenge to stop play and let the challenge proceed. It might not be necessary, since they could continue assuming the call holds up, but it might be nice to have.

Otherwise, I think that would be a fair way to implement that rule if they chose to do so.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I don't think we really want coaches to be able to stop play espcialy in the final seconds of the game. Imagine Duncan going up for a shot with 10 seconds on the clock, Webber blocks the shot cleanly and obviously Miller gets the blocked shot and hits Bibby for a breka away, but wait Pop hist his button and paly stops. Refes rule in Kings favor and we in bound against a prepaierd Spurs defense with 8 seconds left on the clock...

 

[uolj]

I don't think we really want coaches to be able to stop play espcialy in the final seconds of the game. Imagine Duncan going up for a shot with 10 seconds on the clock, Webber blocks the shot cleanly and obviously Miller gets the blocked shot and hits Bibby for a breka away, but wait Pop hist his button and paly stops. Refes rule in Kings favor and we in bound against a prepaierd Spurs defense with 8 seconds left on the clock...

I think the better idea (VF21's) is to let play continue and review when it stops on its own. Kings make the layup, if the challenge is denied they keep the basket, if upheld, they get the ball with 8 seconds and Spurs basket is good.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I think the better idea (VF21's) is to let play continue and review when it stops on its own. Kings make the layup, if the challenge is denied they keep the basket, if upheld, they get the ball with 8 seconds and Spurs basket is good.

I was pointing out the futility of stopping play, Can't see them play out several min of a game then canceling a basket or tow and giving the other team a "do over" talk about a formual to enrage fans and complicate the game.

 

[Gary]

I was kinda thinking the same thing VF was thinking..

But like in football on a FALSE START the whistle is blown and people just stop playing.. On a close call like that the ref that is questioning it blows his whislte until the players realize and just stop like in football.. Or in the last 2 minutes the coach can hit a button, and the play stops at the next basket/dead ball, and if overturned than the opposing team gets the ball as they would HAD a basket been made. good call VF!~

 

[uolj]

I was pointing out the futility of stopping play, Can't see them play out several min of a game then canceling a basket or tow and giving the other team a "do over" talk about a formual to enrage fans and complicate the game.

I agree that stopping play is a bad idea.

I also think that if they wanted to implement more instant replay, they could do it without stopping play. Play would stop at the next dead ball or when the team that challenged gets possession. If the team that challenged loses a scoring opportunity, that's their fault for challenging. Perfectly fair, in my opinion. The only question is whether you really want instant replay to be that much a part of the game.

 

[Brewer16]

New refs wouldnt hurt either..

 

[VF21]

I was pointing out the futility of stopping play, Can't see them play out several min of a game then canceling a basket or tow and giving the other team a "do over" talk about a formual to enrage fans and complicate the game.

You're not following my scenario.

There's no way several minutes would elapse.

Look at my example again. Adelman would have hit the button, light, whatever to indicate a challenge. The play would have continued until the Mavs scored the basket OR the Kings got the ball on a turnover, missed shot, etc. AT THAT POINT, there would be an official time out, something they do all the time for hard commercial breaks anyway. They would review the play. If the call went in the Kings favor, they get the bucket, the game clock is set back to 57 seconds and the Mavs have the ball which is exactly what should have happened. IF the call goes against the Kings, they are charged a time out, the game clock remains at 45 seconds and it's treated just like a commercial time out. The Kings are given the ball out of bounds and play resumes.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I think I follow you, but you are still expecting the Refs to possibly erase a score and turn back the clock... that will not sit well with crowds. Also some how I just do not see the NBA making this radical a change... but that is just me.

 

[VF21]

Possibly erase a score that never would have been made if the call was correct? A critical call at the end of a game?

I'm just talking about the challenge rule being evoked in the last minute or so of play. I think you're vastly overestimating the potential for having scores reversed.

Regardless, it's just a suggestion.

There was a lot of protest about the challenge before it became used in the NFL, too.

What I'm expecting is the league to address the absymal officiating. Since that most likely WON'T ever be completely solved, the idea of a challenge could at least remove some of the ugliness over situations like last night's.

 

[BigWaxer]

Adelman would have hit the button.

HAHA I picture a big Button like on that game show "Press your luck" NO WAMMY NO WAMMY NO WAMMY BANG

Replay/Challenges would only work I think if it were last play only type deal. They review the last play if its challenged. Otherwise I think Brick is right I don't see how it could be implemented without stopping the flow.

 

[iheartBrad]

ya know NOBODY thought that this instant replay challenge thing was gonna work in the NFL...myself included...and its really worked wonders

i love the idea for the NBA...obviously there would have to be a few changes from the way the NFL does it...but i think if it means the refs make the CORRECT call then i think the fans will live it...it may take a little time but they'll live with it....i mean even in football if the ref overturn his original call and it goes against the home team the crowd doesn;t like it they boo....but they get over it...cuz at the end of the day they know that it was correct and that it was fair

 

[6th]

HAHA I picture a big Button like on that game show "Press your luck" NO WAMMY NO WAMMY NO WAMMY BANG

ROFLMAO!!

 

[Kingsgurl]

I think I follow you, but you are still expecting the Refs to possibly erase a score and turn back the clock... that will not sit well with crowds. Also some how I just do not see the NBA making this radical a change... but that is just me.

Missing critical calls at the end of the game isn't sitting too well with me either. At least, at that point, you would know they got it right, had at least LOOKED at the damn play.