Time to allow "challenges" in the NBA?

[Kingzrool]

Seems like an easy one to me. You can call a challenge if you have a timeout, if the challenge stands the timeout does not count. If the call stands, a timeout is deducted. This way the only extra stoppages are when bad calls are made and that should not really be a problem, there was a bad call after all. It will put more pressure on the refs, but obviously that is necessary.I should add that I am a big fan of no delay, that is why I lova b-ball and pay no attention to baseball or football.

 

[Warhawk]

Seems like an easy one to me. You can call a challenge if you have a timeout, if the challenge stands the timeout does not count. If the call stands, a timeout is deducted. This way the only extra stoppages are when bad calls are made and that should not really be a problem, there was a bad call after all. It will put more pressure on the refs, but obviously that is necessary.I should add that I am a big fan of no delay, that is why I lova b-ball and pay no attention to baseball or football.

But the problem is, what if you don't have posession? How do you call a timeout for a non-call challenge?

 

[uolj]

But the problem is, what if you don't have posession? How do you call a timeout for a non-call challenge?

You indicate a challenge, then the refs stop play when it is not a disadvantage for the other team (as in a clock malfunction) or when you gain possession, whichever comes first.

The unnatural play stoppages would not be anymore severe than they are now, they would just be more frequent. However, since they would be tied to a timeout, they wouldn't have much affect on the length of the game (assuming the number of challenges was limited).

 

[bozzwell]

Ultimately, the question is: what is worse, the current system or issues that new system would bring in? I think that the case can be made for status quo and for 4th ref/review system. Basketball is a strong, big business, a major sport, that can weather this crises or radical changes to refereeing.

What I am interested to see is the changes to rules, guidelines for referees, how the games are refereed (with or without 4th ref) and even format, game rule, playoff/season changes that would address all the issues that piled up over the years. It wouldn't be a big deal if solitary ref was trying to influence outcome of the games because he is a degenerate gambled, if it wasn't for the fact that for years refereeing was bad to atrocious, regular season is dull, tanking for lottery, horrible EC all the while league puts on a brave face and is more concerned with its image then substance.

Like Simmons said, this is a tipping point, one more bad thing to deal with on the tail of all the other ****. I am really looking to NBA to do a lot, not just to do something to save face in this current scandal. I can still be Sacramento Kings fan without purchasing NBA League Pass every year and shelling out dough on official NBA gear.

 

[Superman]

I don't agree that the system is successful in the NFL because of the natural stoppages. I think the system is successful because coaches and officials both know a contentious decision can be questioned/over-ruled.

In the NFL, calls are a lot more black and white than they are in the NBA. The most commonly challenged calls in football (whether the ball-carrier stepped out of bounds, fumbles, catches) can usually be decided one way or the other by looking at the replay.

In the NBA, there are only really three calls that are always clear-cut right or wrong: out of bounds, last second shots, and three-pointers. Everything else usually depends on the judgment of the official making the call (charges/blocks, fouls, etc.) So if you're going to institute replay for three pointers, that can be done on the fly without stopping play by a 4th official. It seems silly to stop play for an out of bounds call in a game with 70 or 80 possessions for each team. And we already have replay for last second shots, so if you want to stop play to review shot-clock violations, be my guest. But I don't think it would help the NBA enough to justify the additional stoppages in a game that many feel is already becoming more boring every season.

As far as annoying delays go, that argument just doesn't hold water. If you have a LIMITED number of challenges available to each team and, as with the NFL, teams are charged a time out if their challenge isn't upheld, then you haven't really stopped the game any more than usual. In fact, you probably wouldn't notice much time differential at all if the types of plays being contested included whether or not there was actually a personal foul committed. (If there wasn't, the guy wouldn't shoot the free throws and play would resume, for example).

Like I said, I think that foul calls are far too subjective the majority of the time to be subject to review. And then that brings in the issue of fouls that aren't called. As a matter of fact, refs would probably be slightly more hesitant to call fouls at times if they felt the call would be overly scrutinized.

And honestly, I don't think the system you described (of course, that description isn't comprehensive) would make much of a difference. I doubt that very many calls would get overturned, especially foul calls, since you would need absolute proof to reverse a call. As such, coaches probably wouldn't challenge very many calls to begin with.

It's not a matter of allowing free challenging. I firmly believe this system could work in the NBA. Again, we're talking something like maybe two challenges per game. And, if it's gonna cost a team a time out, they're certainly not going to waste those challenges.

Probably not. I just don't think it would be effective enough to make a difference in the quality of the officiating in the NBA. It's a lot different from the NFL in that most calls in the NBA are subjective to a large degree, so it's much harder to make an irrefutable case against them. There are, on occasion, terrible calls that a 3rd grader could point out, but in a game with so many possessions, they tend not to have a detrimental effect on the quality of the game being played.

If you're going to review 24 second violations and three-pointers, in addition to already looking at last-second shots (which the NBA approved because it requires no additional stoppage in play; it's done at the end of quarters and overtimes), then those reviews should be automatically done by a 4th "review" official on the sidelines. And it's still very iffy with 24 second violations, if you ask me.

I just don't think there's much room for reviews in the NBA without hurting the quality of the product.

 

[VF21]

I see your point, Supes, I just don't agree with it.

Sometimes the perception of control is actually more important than the control itself. If teams know they have the right to challenge bad calls and officials know their calls can be challenged, it puts a different perspective into play.

You don't think the system I described can work. I think you're taking my suggestion too far at this point. I haven't proposed a system; I simply proposed that they consider implementing a means for teams to object to what they firmly believe are errors by the officials.

Look at the Manu Ginobli late foul call in game 3 of the Spurs-Suns game and tell me that wasn't as phantom a call as you could find. D'Antoni certainly would have challenged that "call" and it would have been overturned.

There were a lot of people who objected to instant replay in the NFL, too, for a lot of the reasons you're bringing up here.

With me, it's a matter of giving a voice or at least the appearance of a voice to the teams to help restore faith in the officiating. I think we all know it's not gonna be easy to be a ref in the NBA for the foreseeable future. Putting things into place that can act as safeguards doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

 

[Superman]

Ultimately, the question is: what is worse, the current system or issues that new system would bring in? I think that the case can be made for status quo and for 4th ref/review system. Basketball is a strong, big business, a major sport, that can weather this crises or radical changes to refereeing.

What I am interested to see is the changes to rules, guidelines for referees, how the games are refereed (with or without 4th ref) and even format, game rule, playoff/season changes that would address all the issues that piled up over the years. It wouldn't be a big deal if solitary ref was trying to influence outcome of the games because he is a degenerate gambled, if it wasn't for the fact that for years refereeing was bad to atrocious, regular season is dull, tanking for lottery, horrible EC all the while league puts on a brave face and is more concerned with its image then substance.

Like Simmons said, this is a tipping point, one more bad thing to deal with on the tail of all the other ****. I am really looking to NBA to do a lot, not just to do something to save face in this current scandal. I can still be Sacramento Kings fan without purchasing NBA League Pass every year and shelling out dough on official NBA gear.

Agreed.

I don't think the big problem here is with the officiating as it is with the NBA's hesitancy to improve the substance of the product. Some of the rules and their interpretations as it pertains to the NBA are antiquated and ineffective.

And David Stern's deifying of the referees over the past several seasons has done a lot of harm to the game as well. I'm not one to argue over ticky-tack calls, or blame the refs for games not going the way I hoped they would, but the whole Joey Crawford vs. Tim Duncan situation earlier this season sort of underlined how an official can let his position of "authority" go to his head, resulting in an inferior product.

Jalen Rose made a comment yesterday that referees are like NFL long-snappers and placeholders: when you know their names, it's a bad thing. Over the past decade or so, NBA officials have gained more and more notoriety, to the detriment of the League. Until Stern addresses the flaws of the League (bozzwell mentions the "Leastern" conference and the current Lottery system, and there are others), the NBA will continue to lose support.

What's sad about that is that I've been attached to basketball my entire life, but the NBA is losing it's glamour to me.

 

[Superman]

I see your point, Supes, I just don't agree with it.

Sometimes the perception of control is actually more important than the control itself. If teams know they have the right to challenge bad calls and officials know their calls can be challenged, it puts a different perspective into play.

You don't think the system I described can work. I think you're taking my suggestion too far at this point. I haven't proposed a system; I simply proposed that they consider implementing a means for teams to object to what they firmly believe are errors by the officials.

Look at the Manu Ginobli late foul call in game 3 of the Spurs-Suns game and tell me that wasn't as phantom a call as you could find. D'Antoni certainly would have challenged that "call" and it would have been overturned.

There were a lot of people who objected to instant replay in the NFL, too, for a lot of the reasons you're bringing up here.

I see what you mean. I just can't imagine a challenge system in the NBA being effective enough to make a difference. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't really care to find out.

With me, it's a matter of giving a voice or at least the appearance of a voice to the teams to help restore faith in the officiating. I think we all know it's not gonna be easy to be a ref in the NBA for the foreseeable future. Putting things into place that can act as safeguards doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

I'm not as excited about the idea of "giving team's a voice" as you are, mainly because coaches and players alike argue more calls than they should. The NBA recognized this at the start of last season (perhaps hypocritically so when you start to see just how reprehensible the refs can be). I don't know how effective it would be to create another point of contention between the officials and the teams, on the court no less. Some officials already have a "Xerxes complex", and now you give the teams a way to call them out in front of the world? I don't see that going over very well. But perhaps that's a reason to use challenges, not a reason not to.

I think automatic reviews for non-subjective calls (clock calls, out of bounds, three-pointers) would be a good starting point. Perhaps team-requested reviews for 24-second violations would work better than automatic reviews, in which case I don't think there's any need for a limit on these. I don't know how effective anything else would be.

 

[Warhawk]

I think automatic reviews for non-subjective calls (clock calls, out of bounds, three-pointers) would be a good starting point. Perhaps team-requested reviews for 24-second violations would work better than automatic reviews, in which case I don't think there's any need for a limit on these.

Agreed.

What I think would be most difficult to implement is a review of non-calls, blatant or not, since play doesn't stop. In the case of Ginobli's example, what if he had been fouled and no call was made? Play continues. How do you challenge something like that in a timely manner with no stoppage in play?

What if you are intentionally trying to foul and they miss it? Can you call a challenge on your own team's non-call to get a foul called and save those few precious seconds at the end of a game?

 

[bozzwell]

Jalen Rose made a comment yesterday that referees are like NFL long-snappers and placeholders: when you know their names, it's a bad thing.

That is very sharp of Jalen. Good point. The only ref/ump outside NBA whose name I can recollect right now is Ed Hochuli and I had to look up spelling of his name. The only reason I remember him is because announcers/talk show hosts always talk about him/make fun of him. Yet, I could run off at least 10-12 NBA refs names in the middle of the night. This despite the fact that I watch almost every NFL game and only Kings/playoffs in NBA.

 

[uolj]

What I think would be most difficult to implement is a review of non-calls, blatant or not, since play doesn't stop. In the case of Ginobli's example, what if he had been fouled and no call was made? Play continues. How do you challenge something like that in a timely manner with no stoppage in play?

I think I already answered you on that one last time you asked.

 

[VF21]

Agreed.

What I think would be most difficult to implement is a review of non-calls, blatant or not, since play doesn't stop. In the case of Ginobli's example, what if he had been fouled and no call was made? Play continues. How do you challenge something like that in a timely manner with no stoppage in play?

What if you are intentionally trying to foul and they miss it? Can you call a challenge on your own team's non-call to get a foul called and save those few precious seconds at the end of a game?

I don't think non-calls are the problem. If you look at Donaghy's situation, for example, it was the plethora of extra calls he made sending people to the line for inordinately high FT totals that seems to be the smoking gun.

Not calling fouls doesn't result in FT. Unearned FTs can swing the course of a game enough to affect the point spread and, if there are enough of them, the outcome of the game itself. That, to me, is much more egregious than a couple of non-calls.

But no system will be perfect. At this point, I think we're talking about the visibility and accountability factors being increased.

 

[Warhawk]

Basically, a play can be reviewed only when the team initiating the challenge is allowed to call a timeout. So when you want to challenge a call, the coach hits the buzzer or whatever and the next time that team has the ball or there is a stoppage the play is reviewed. This should work for the majority of cases. You have to figure out what to do with any action that took place in the meantime, but I think I remember there being an acceptable solution that last time we discussed it.

Your solution is basically that the team wanting to challenge is screwed.

Waiting until a stoppage in play can be several trips up and down the court later. What then, you add 2 minutes to the clock and replay them if a blown call was made? Ain't gonna happen. There needs to be some way to stop play immediately if this is going to work for these types of plays.

 

[Warhawk]

I don't think non-calls are the problem. If you look at Donaghy's situation, for example, it was the plethora of extra calls he made sending people to the line for inordinately high FT totals that seems to be the smoking gun.

Not calling fouls doesn't result in FT. Unearned FTs can swing the course of a game enough to affect the point spread and, if there are enough of them, the outcome of the game itself. That, to me, is much more egregious than a couple of non-calls.

But no system will be perfect. At this point, I think we're talking about the visibility and accountability factors being increased.

I think non-calls are as big a problem as blown ones. "Star" players getting prefferential treatment, travelling, palming, 3-seconds, non-called fouls, etc. If the games were called correctly it would be a much better game.

Not calling fouls might lead to less free throws but it still results in a "doctored" result.

 

[uolj]

Your solution is basically that the team wanting to challenge is screwed.

Waiting until a stoppage in play can be several trips up and down the court later. What then, you add 2 minutes to the clock and replay them if a blown call was made? Ain't gonna happen. There needs to be some way to stop play immediately if this is going to work for these types of plays.

I guess you are misunderstanding what I meant.

If the clock malfunctions, the referees will stop the play unless it is a disadvantage to one team. The same would happen here, so if the opposing team was just getting into their offense, the referees could stop play to look at the challenge.

If no opportunity arises when the opposing team has the ball (e.g. they are out on a fast break), then play is stopped immediately when the challenging team gains possession.

Does that make more sense?

Edit: Oops, maybe you were looking at an older post before I had clarified the idea. The one you quoted was an earlier suggestion, this is the one I was referring to when I said I already answered that question: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=474402&postcount=33

 

[Warhawk]

Yeah, I must have missed that post skimming through the thread, thanks.

 

[Variant]

I don't think challenges would fit unfortunately (for reasons many others have already said so I won't rehash). I also think there is a LOT of room for improvement in how the game is currently officiated. Make the official review process less secretive. Emphasize consistent calls throughout the game and regardless of whether or not the player is a star or not. Quit calling things on one end but not the other... it's mainly the absurd inconsistency that boggles my mind because it's just not necessary. Fix it.

And if a call is missed? The NBA should admit it, apologize and move on. The NFL does this and it goes a long way to at least keep credibility up. The whole don't talk about it and sweep it under the rug and hope we'll quit being upset about it thing just makes everything worse and doesn't do anything to help assuage fears of conspiracy.

 

[Rookie]

You may search at will, but my stance hasn't changed. Not practical on any sort of general scale in a free flowing game. .

Free flow...every minute the game stopped because of a foul.

People just are upset at the refs and so they flail about lookking for some answer, but there really isn't one. You can't challenge any significant number fo the plays in a game where the refs are far more involved than they are in any other (perhaps aside from giving baseball managers the right to challenge balls and strikes). You simply can NOT erase subsequent action as "oh sorry, didn't happen" for some pissant little challenge system. And you can't stop the flow of the game articially to go examine a monitor. You could set it up on a timeout system. but teams only have the right to call timeouts when they have the ball or during a stoppage. So at best all youo et is the right to challenge a foul if the foul happens to send the other team to the line. So you get a random and non-represenatative samplng of calls that caln be challenged vs. not..

Just opinion..and I have to differ with this. Not so smart coach would challenge something mid game and risk the chance of losing a time out for 2-3 points. It is most likely be used at the very end in a very close game where every call can affect the outcome. Unlike the NFL every points count from beginning to end.

A monitor can give you more info than your eyes can in real time.

Does not work for this game. Your choices are a neutered ineffectual system, or a neutered slowed down game. And all fothis to get a chance to maybe challenge 3% of the whistles in a given game, and ina game mind you were things are very subjective.

Just your opinion again which some will agreed and disagreed. I think it won't slow anything down other than a corrective action has been taken to make it fair or a team used their timeout.

Hell I wouldn't want my team going out because of a bad call or moving on with an * by them.

 

[Warhawk]

I guess I just keep coming back to the fact that this game, unlike football, really wouldn't tolerate a challenge system well except for instances where the clock is already stopped or a timeout is called by the team with the ball.

I think better refs and calling the game the right way beginning to end would do wonders to make this topic go away.

Basically, I guess I agree with Variant.

 

[Superman]

Just opinion..and I have to differ with this. Not so smart coach would challenge something mid game and risk the chance of losing a time out for 2-3 points. It is most likely be used at the very end in a very close game where every call can affect the outcome. Unlike the NFL every points count from beginning to end.

A monitor can give you more info than your eyes can in real time.

Even in the NFL, any reviews during the final two minutes of the second quarter or the fourth quarter, and any reviews during overtime are prompted from a replay official up in the booth.

And there are still calls in the NFL that are not challengeable, including penalties, etc.

 

[Rookie]

A ref calling the game the right way from beginning to end require perfection, which would require a perfect ref, which require a perfect person. I don't think that exist.

I'm not trying to say that the "challenge" is the best method but base on the objection that it has.. most of them to me (just my opinion as well as everyone else) is not valid. I would rather try to modified it to make it work with basketball.

An extra ref or two monitoring from a different view is a good suggestion as well.

 

[Warhawk]

A ref calling the game the right way from beginning to end require perfection, which would require a perfect ref, which require a perfect person. I don't think that exist.

I'm not trying to say that the "challenge" is the best method but base on the objection that it has.. most of them to me (just my opinion as well as everyone else) is not valid. I would rather try to modified it to make it work with basketball.

An extra ref or two monitoring from a different view is a good suggestion as well.

Eh, no.

There's a difference between right and perfect. I want it called right. I don't demand perfecion from referees, just the guts to call the game the way it should be.

 

[Entity]

I got a great Idea. What if Stern created a Panel of in office refs that review games and the calls made during them. The coaches of the teams can report an obviously bad call to the panel and it can then be reviewed by them. They then have to vote unaimusly that is was a blatant bad call then the ref in question will be fined 5k by the league. I garuntee you start hitting the pocket book and the refs will start calling it down the middle. I'd say the panel would have to be around 5 ppl.

 

[Superman]

I got a great Idea. What if Stern created a Panel of in office refs that review games and the calls made during them. The coaches of the teams can report an obviously bad call to the panel and it can then be reviewed by them. They then have to vote unaimusly that is was a blatant bad call then the ref in question will be fined 5k by the league. I garuntee you start hitting the pocket book and the refs will start calling it down the middle. I'd say the panel would have to be around 5 ppl.

$5,000 for a mistake?

 

[cfechter]

A challenge about whether a basket was a 2 or a 3 in the last seconds of the game could be an automatic review situation at the next stoppage. Or something...

There are ways, I believe, to address most of these concerns. The first hurdle is to actually decide it's worth pursuing and then start finding ways to overcome the possible downsides.

I think this may be the only feasible way - having challenges in the last little bit of the game or half, when the clock stops on almost every position anyway.

I doubt inidividual calls/non-calls will ever be reviewed, that opens up a can of worms you just wouldn't be able to close.

 

[RIP miyagi]

it should only be used to challenge shots and place on the court, even though refs are pretty good about that.

 

[Entity]

$5,000 for a mistake?

I said it would have to be voted on. Its not 5k for a mistake its 5k for an blatant missed call in order to give favor to 1 team.

 

[Superman]

I said it would have to be voted on. Its not 5k for a mistake its 5k for an blatant missed call in order to give favor to 1 team.

But how do you determine that? In the history of the NBA, only one ref has ever had serious accusations cast against him with regards to favoring one team over another. Stern and Co. already protect their egotistical, insecure officials; I can't imagine a panel deciding to fine a referee for a blown call, especially when they have to establish intent in order to do so. Ain't gon' happen.

The NBA should have been acknowledging mistakes all along. Now this Donaghy situation has the potential to taint the credibility of the entire League. Had they been more forthcoming with information relating to how their officials are scrutinized and disciplined, maybe there would be less conspiracy theories floating around.

 

[Merdiesel]

Seeing that for some strange reason Sac is always on the recieving end of getting screwed, i vote HELL YES!

 

[Superman]

NFL referrees to see replays in HD

NFL to go high definition under the hood

I thought this was interesting.

1) The NFL couldn't have timed this announcement better. With all the drama going on in the NBA with Tim Donaghy, and with all the Bonds' drama in MLB, the National Football League releases some good news about their officiating and rule enforcement policies. Talk about PR.

2) The reason I'm posting this:

About half of the situations that have been reviewed since 1999 involved whether a potential catch was complete or incomplete, Blandino said. He believes the new HD replays will help officials greatly with that type of call.

"What used to be, 'Is this foot in or out of bounds?"' Zabel said, "is now that you can see the blades of grass between the foot and the sideline."

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?