Time for a challenge system? (split from Donaghy thread)
- Thread starter sactown_draftpick
- Start date
NOTE: I split this away from the Donaghy thread as I think it deserves its own thread.
Personally, I think the league MUST do something at this point to at least appear as though they're serious about the integrity of the game and the officiating. While challenges present a separate set of problems, I think they could be dealt with in a manner that would be acceptable.
Personally, I think the league MUST do something at this point to at least appear as though they're serious about the integrity of the game and the officiating. While challenges present a separate set of problems, I think they could be dealt with in a manner that would be acceptable.
I like the idea of a challenge system, but I don't think that any feasible system will have an effect on the problem exposed by Donaghy. Any challenge system with enough challenges to turn around games like game 6 would completely bog down the game to make it unwatchable.
To fix the problem the league has to find a way to make objectivity and consistency the highest priority. To do that they probably have to turn control over the officials over to an independent party (and no, not Ralph Nader's Independent party
).
To fix the problem the league has to find a way to make objectivity and consistency the highest priority. To do that they probably have to turn control over the officials over to an independent party (and no, not Ralph Nader's Independent party
).
I like the idea of challenges, but even the NFL doesn't allow the coach to challenge an infraction, and some of those are far bigger than the things that are challengeable (PI, Defensive Holding). What would the NBA allow? Charges and blocks to see if its in the restricted area, maybe? Anything else is pretty much asking a ref to reverse his own call and I bet that isn't likely to happen.
I agree, but I agreed six years ago too. The dustup in 2002 was as big, if not bigger, than it is now. The NBA didn't do anything about the officiating then or over the last six years, so I have no reason to believe they'll do anything now. The only way this is going to change is when the NBA eventually changes commissioners.
I think a challenge system is the way to go. It's worked for the NFL. And same rules should apply: any questionable play in the last 2 minutes of each half is automatically reviewed and can be overturned, 2 challenges per half, lose a timeout if challenge is unsuccessful. I really think the NBA should do this. Maybe test it out in a few pre-season games or something to see how it goes
NFL and NBA are two different beasties, and the even the NFL is not nutty enough to have challenges for things like fouls. You can't challenge pass interference for instance -- its too much of a judgement call. Same thing with the great majority of the problem calls in Game 6. All you could rationally try to challenge in basketball would be in/out of bounds, foot on line for threes, did the clock run out, and that kind of thing. And we've had this same thread before (and I really doubt anything new wil come of this), and never have addressed how disastrous it would be to the flow of a flow game to suddenly call a halt to the action and wait for two minutes while the officials go over to huddle on the sidelines. You can do that in a stop start game if you want. In football, baseball, in tennis maybe. Not in flow games like soccer or basketball without artificially chopping the hell out of the game.
Nor, it should be obviouosly noted, would a challenge system be likely to have much effect if indeed the issue is biased refs. If you truly think there was a conspiracy, well what do you think happens whenh the conspiring ref goes over to rule on the challenge?
Nor, it should be obviouosly noted, would a challenge system be likely to have much effect if indeed the issue is biased refs. If you truly think there was a conspiracy, well what do you think happens whenh the conspiring ref goes over to rule on the challenge?
Some kind of video replay is needed. That's a given. If for no other reason than to correct easily correctable judgment calls like the shot in the Orlando-Detroit series this year when the clock never started.
As far as impartiality, the only thing that would satisfy me at this point is if every NBA referee is dismissed and a completely new staff is hired and trained at the same time. There's too many referees in the NBA who've been there so long they think they know better than everyone else how to call games. It's gotten to the point now where the outcome of the game is dependent on the subjective opinion of some referee and how they think the game should be played. The most damning evidence for me comes directly from the FBI Affidavit (they've posted it on ESPN)...
Look at #12 on page 7. Donaghy was providing betting recommendations not just for the games he was involved in, but for every NBA game based on his inside knowledge of who the referee team was going to be for that game. The odds for the game were predicated on the ref team without their knowledge. That means someone somewhere has statistical proof that certain referees tend to favor certain players or the home team or certain owners, etc. Look at this recent report about the investigation. The FBI is asking very specific questions about specific referees. I don't think there's any way to repair this. It goes too deep. Donaghy was telling his contacts about injuries that hadn't been publicized yet and ref crews. Taking him down cuts off the source but it doesn't correct the bigger problem which is that refs are affecting the outcomes of games consistently enough that someone can map it out statistically and use it for profit. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have made money off it.
The NBA needs to start over and rethink the way referees are trained. And the sooner they do it, the better.
Oh yeah, and I want to see David Stern fired too. He's way too involved with the owners to ever have an unbiased opinion on anything (ie witness how he continues to support Clay Bennett's blatant effort to steal the Sonics from Seattle). Bud Selig is just as bad though. The next commissioner needs to be hired outside of the usual NBA circles. Maybe we should elect one.
As far as impartiality, the only thing that would satisfy me at this point is if every NBA referee is dismissed and a completely new staff is hired and trained at the same time. There's too many referees in the NBA who've been there so long they think they know better than everyone else how to call games. It's gotten to the point now where the outcome of the game is dependent on the subjective opinion of some referee and how they think the game should be played. The most damning evidence for me comes directly from the FBI Affidavit (they've posted it on ESPN)...
Look at #12 on page 7. Donaghy was providing betting recommendations not just for the games he was involved in, but for every NBA game based on his inside knowledge of who the referee team was going to be for that game. The odds for the game were predicated on the ref team without their knowledge. That means someone somewhere has statistical proof that certain referees tend to favor certain players or the home team or certain owners, etc. Look at this recent report about the investigation. The FBI is asking very specific questions about specific referees. I don't think there's any way to repair this. It goes too deep. Donaghy was telling his contacts about injuries that hadn't been publicized yet and ref crews. Taking him down cuts off the source but it doesn't correct the bigger problem which is that refs are affecting the outcomes of games consistently enough that someone can map it out statistically and use it for profit. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have made money off it.
The NBA needs to start over and rethink the way referees are trained. And the sooner they do it, the better.
Oh yeah, and I want to see David Stern fired too. He's way too involved with the owners to ever have an unbiased opinion on anything (ie witness how he continues to support Clay Bennett's blatant effort to steal the Sonics from Seattle). Bud Selig is just as bad though. The next commissioner needs to be hired outside of the usual NBA circles. Maybe we should elect one.
Last edited:
I agree that it's tough to challenge subjective calls, but I disagree that it would interrupt the flow of the game. Give teams one challenge per half and charge them a full timeout if they're wrong and a 20 second timeout if they're right. A 20 second timeout is actually a minute long, so even if teams were right every time, you'd only add 4 minutes to the length of a game.
Gotta disagree here. If the games aren't close, then chances are nobody will even use challenges. And in tight games, it seems teams are calling timeouts all the time anyway, so what's the difference between stopping the game for a timeout, and stopping to review a play? I actually think this could give teams momentum, probably when they need it most
You only stop a play on a timeout on your own possession.
A challenge system, by its very nature, would involve stopping play whenver/wherever a bad call was made, or in the laternative, stopping it on your own possession, and then going back and changing something that had already happened earlier and having to replay from that point. Neither is sensical, nor so far as I know has ANY league in ANY continuous play sport EVER instituted such a ridiculous device. Its just not that big of a deal, and if the games are reffed properly in the first place, the bad calls more or less balance. Only in the case of biad are they likely to pile up and become decisive against one team, and if you have such a bias involved, you aren't going to stop it with challenges, nor is there any rational way you could give a coach on the wrong end of a fix enough challenges to matter. What, is Rick going to get to stop the game a dozen times in the 4th quarter of game 6?
The answer does not lie in screwing up the very flow of the game that makes basketball attractive just to get the occasional call corrected. It lies at a higher level of referee oversight and control.
How about the coaches give up technical fouls instead of timeouts for challenges that were not overturned. Each coach is allowed 2 technical fouls per game and they are done (Ejected). If only head coaches could challenge, then they would have to pick their spots wisely. If they were wrong, then the other team gets to shoot a free throw, if they are right, then they get to redo the play. Challenges could only be called when that team had possession, and the play could only have occurred since the last 2 scores. Since a coach can call time out anytime they have possession, the coach could also call a challenge to a play anytime that they had possession, but could only review something between the previous 2 scores.
Under those rules challenges could be made regarding no calls when a miss or turnover results in the other team scoring easily, and that easy score could be taken away if the no call was found to indeed be a foul. If the no call was found to not be a foul, then the coach would be assigned a technical foul, and the other team could shoot a free throw. That way the review would only disrupt the game as much as a normal technical foul would, and would give the coaches more merit than just rating and raving and receiving the technical foul anyway (See Don Nelson or Gregg Popovich).
Under those rules challenges could be made regarding no calls when a miss or turnover results in the other team scoring easily, and that easy score could be taken away if the no call was found to indeed be a foul. If the no call was found to not be a foul, then the coach would be assigned a technical foul, and the other team could shoot a free throw. That way the review would only disrupt the game as much as a normal technical foul would, and would give the coaches more merit than just rating and raving and receiving the technical foul anyway (See Don Nelson or Gregg Popovich).