Time to allow "challenges" in the NBA?

[uolj]

I believe this is the reason that replay has been successful in the NFL. The majority of the calls reviewed are non-subjective, black-and-white calls that can easily be either upheld or corrected with a good view.

In the NBA, the majority of the calls made are very subjective, especially fouls. Could the NBA implement a system that would work well enough that fans would put up with the delays?

The majority of calls made in the NFL are subjective, too, but only the non-subjective portion are reviewable. There's no reason the same can't be done in the NBA.

Having instant replay reviews for contact fouls doesn't make sense to me in either sport. That doesn't mean a review doesn't have its place for other situations.

To me the biggest difference is that reviewable calls in the NFL tend to matter to the outcome more. In the NBA, a possession here or there doesn't matter enough for a team to call for a replay unless it's late in the game. I don't think that's enough reason not to implement a system, though.

 

[venom_7]

If NBA had it in 2002 we would have lost game 5 and been down 3-2. The ball was out of bounds off Webber. Who knows what might have happened after that?

Quite actually we would have been up 3-2, because Walker's 3 in Game 4 wouldn't have counted. So pick your peach. In reality, challenges could only be used on calls, not non-calls, so it would still be practical during the stoppage of play. Traveling, is a turnover, but as soon as the ref hands it out of bounds, and a challenge goes up, they have to review. Or it could be used to slow momentum. I like the idea.

 

[John Galt]

Quite actually we would have been up 3-2, because Walker's 3 in Game 4 wouldn't have counted. So pick your peach. In reality, challenges could only be used on calls, not non-calls, so it would still be practical during the stoppage of play. Traveling, is a turnover, but as soon as the ref hands it out of bounds, and a challenge goes up, they have to review. Or it could be used to slow momentum. I like the idea.

I don't think you can take a halftime or even third quarter call and say it either cost the game or won the game. Too many hard fouls, missed free throws and jangled nerves happen in the interim to trace things back to something that happened 10 or more minutes ago.

It doesn't matter to me. The fact that we can sit here and "undo" one bad call, counter it with the "undo" of another bad call, and think it settles anything is ridiculous.

That's why I like the old fashioned way - the team with most points at the end wins and that's all there is to it. Refs and Umps giving the benefit of the doubt to stars or favored teams has been part of it since the beginning - underdog teams have to get over it/fight through it, or perish. I don't mind it being that way very much.

Not a fan of replays in any sport.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

it is a MUST. makes it more fair and increases the credibility.

If NBA had it in 2002 - Kings would have had a large banner at ARCO

AMEN!!! I've always thought teams should get 1 replay per half...the same way the NFL does it, it wouldnt interfere with the flow of the game and would be fair for both teams. Dammit if we only had a replay back in 02'...Bibby's shot would have given us a party like we've NEVER had in the history of this city! Can you imagine it? I've been doing that for the last 23 years...*sigh*

edit: so if Boston had the 'Curse of the Bambino'...what's our curse called??...because we ARE cursed, I've come to that finality. lol