Should the NBA have coach's challenge?

I don't see a good reason why the normal review process takes as long as it does. There is a spare ref at NBA games right? Why isn't this person watching all the replays and letting the refs know almost immediately if they made the right call or not (it's rare that you can't tell based on one or two looks at the replay)? No, the refs absolutely need to look at it themselves... If they streamlined this process (saving a lot of time by doing so), more people would be receptive to your idea.

 

What is there to challenge that isn't already reviewed?
When exactly do you stop the action to review a challenge?
Could the coach call for a challenge just to prevent a late game fast break?

I was all for baseball challenges, but the NBA is way more fast paced. It's not like football where you can just call the play back at the next dead ball.

I think implementing a challenge system for basketball, while not impossible, would be VERY difficult. There are numerous potential grey areas that could transpire. The NBA should just work on making their current review processes more efficient.

 

They would never change a foul/no call, so why bother?

A solid system is already in place regarding out of bounds, 3pters, shotclock, etc.

 

Within the last two minutes

Rocket River

 

Here are my comments to some posts so far.

1. Why does it have to be like the NFL? Basketball can do its own reviewing that fits the nature of the sport.

2. Adding two challenges per team to a game is not going to prolong the game very much. Wasting a timeout for challenges is a good way to curb overuse. Also, it can be limited to the last two minutes of the game. I would say that they should have a time limit (30 second?) for any review whether it's coach-challenged or official-challenged.

3. While foul calls are somewhat subjective, they are not totally subjective. Otherwise, why would the NBA start publishing their judgment on questionable calls the day after the game? How many times have there been when the whole world knew a call was blown and a game was decided on that bad call? It just shows you that replays very often show clearly a play was miscalled. Also, out of bound, 3pt line etc. are not always conclusive either. If inconclusive, the call on the floor stands. Very simple.

4. Non-calls are hard to review because you can't review unless it's a dead ball. Too bad.

 

Definitely. It works well in tennis too.

An aspect of it that is missed but crucial is that a missed call stays in a players head and effects their game. If they know that they're right or wrong and it's settled, they can get back to focusing on the game.

If you get the challenge right, you keep it. If you enter overtime out of challenges you get a fresh one.

This will certainly be exploited by certain teams to kill momentum, get their older players some rest etc but it should be looked at.

Who cares if it makes a game longer? Seriously, if you're invested in the game you want it to be called as close to fair as possible.

Think about all of the crap we've put up with that could have been challenged. Malone's bear hug, Finley stepping out of bounds etc.

 

Yes. And it's stupid not to include penalties and fouls in replay. Who cares if it is a judgement call, that can be changed too in the judgement of the reviewer.

 

The ball either goes through the basket or not. That's what makes it different. There is absolutely no gray area when it comes to "did the guy score or not." Everything else about whether the basket counts is already part of the review system.

There is really not much else to do except add to what is reviewable. But I'd say that's for another thread. This is about coach challenges as part of what is reviewable.

 

Not sure if that's the intention of the OP. The thread title might be a bit too simplistic. But why do you want to limit the OP's discussion to your interpretation of the thread's intention?

Foul calls aren't reviewable, if I understand it correctly, because they are deemed "judgment calls." What baffles me is that why are judgment calls non-reviewable?

I can see why football doesn't want to review things like holding because there are just too many actions going on at the line of scrimmage at the same time during every play. (I still think that things like pass interference and roughing the passer should be reviewable. It's not difficult to review and not hard to judge, but a wrong call makes a huge difference.) Basketball is much simpler in terms of focusing on some key actions, e.g. a block shot or a foul; a charge or a defensive foul; etc.

 

OK, I'm fine moving the thread topic to be about what is reviewable and not.

I think a lot of very smart people in Basketball, Football and FIFA have all agreed that fouls and penalties (aka "judgement calls") are not reviewable. I think it stems from a desire to keep calling a foul in real-time part of the game, and not allow slow-motion, technology make the judgement call, or force a belabored call.

You can see a slo-mo angle that appears contact occurred, when it didn't. You can see slo-mo that makes any touch a foul, when in fact that's not always true--hence the phrase "incidental contact."

Slo-mo can amplify things into fouls.
And also, how do you handle non-calls?

Bottomline: Sure, absolutely, some foul calls are obvious, but certainly not every one nor nearly every one. So, I think the pros here are saying judgement calls are best done in real-time, because even slo-mo won't make a ref (or even a coach) second guess themselves the next day on another look.

 

The current review process sucks. How can you look to see who last touched an out-of-bounds ball and not acknowledge an obvious foul just because it wasn't called at the time, particularly if the foul contributed to the ball being off a player? Just stupid.

I'm for change.

 

Then also say it sucks in football and soccer, too. All three sports agree that fouls and penalties are not reviewable. And what to do with non-calls just escalates the argument from both sides.

Let's say they allow challenging fouls. Then people will say, "How come they can reverse a foul call, but do nothing about a non-call." Can you stop play to challenge a non-call? Will you say, "but on the last play, they should be able to challenge non-calls." But then will there never be walk-off celebrations again, because every last play will undergo a review like the '72 Olympics?

 

No. We already have way too many interruptions with a lot of advertisements and it's bad. It would slow the game even more down and lose the momentum. You can't possibly think that a coach challenge process is going to take only two minutes?!?
I only have watched one american football match in my life and I thought it was awful how little action to how many game interruptions there were and that's why I personally didn't like it at all. I would definitely stop watching the nba if it turned out like that with reviews and challenges and game stops every couple minutes.


And in tennis it works because it's a different kind of sport. The pace is totally opposite than basketball and it's non contact sport. And the calls are very quickly and easily reviewable and even adds to the excitement. Either the ball touched the line or it's out. It's simple doesn't require interpretation and judgement etc.

If we want to improve the refereeing ask for better and more competent referees that are held accountable and can be fired if they are bad. Not more interruptions.

 

I would much prefer the NBA to get rid of the current referees and get actual GOOD refs in there who have integrity. And hold them accountable.

But the chances of the league actually doing that are zero. It's good for business for certain teams and players to get favorable treatment.

 

Refs in all sports are being second guessed in this day and age of replay. Bad calls are talked about after the game and the refs are embarrassed whether they reviewed them in-game or not.

Sure, reviews don't get every call right. The clear solution is to follow the current principle of upholding the call on the floor if replay is inconclusive. It applies to out of bound calls. Why can't it apply to foul calls?

To me, the purpose of reviewing is to eliminate obvious bad calls that make big differences to the game. People will debate till the end of time those non-obvious calls. But who cares. What most fans want is to not let obvious bad calls ruin the game. Do you want to see some crucial wins, even championships, tainted in people's head because they were decided by a call everybody knew was wrong?

Yes, non-calls in the flow of the game can't be helped. That's too bad. But at least we can eliminate bad calls in dead ball situations. (Dead situations are probably more than live ball situations.)

 

Sure, fair enough.

I don't really care what the thread title is about, necessarily.

The end goal should be a fair game. Whether that's changing what is reviewable, or allowing coachs' challenges, or both, or whatever.

 

No, not too keen. It's appropriate to the NFL, because games turn on pivotal plays and pivotal calls. An NBA game is much more an accumulation of small events. So, the coach can call for a review of play in a tied game with a minute left and change the outcome. But, is that play really any more important than the traveling call in the second quarter or the collision in the third that could have easily been a charge or a blocking foul. These 'critical' plays are only critical because you've implicitly accepted as valid the umpteen judgement calls that came before it was known that the game would be close. So, getting some critical play at the end right does not make the game more fair if you can't address all the other plays earlier in the game. A basket in the first quarter is worth as much as one scored in the fourth. So they need a system that regulates calls throughout the game, not selectively.

 

All those who are against coach's challenge because it extends the game, slows momentum, and adds to an already commercial-break heavy format are addressing a legitimate concern. The added stoppage from a challenge could adversely affect the game in the ways yet unknown. However, there is also a compromise that could ensure the issues listed above are sufficiently addressed.

First, some basics: per NBA rulebook each team is allotted 6 timeouts, 4 of which must be mandatorily used throughout the game. Otherwise, the scorekeeper will at different predetermined points in the game call a timeout and charge either team depending on the number of timeouts left. That's how the NBA creates forced commercial breaks.

Now, one way to create a challenge system that does not add to this break-heavy system would be the following:

• Each team gets one challenge per half. No rollovers.
• Each challenge requires the use of a full timeout.

If the challenging team hasn't used one of its 4 mandatory timeouts, then a one will be charged from that allotment. Otherwise, the 2 remaining timeouts can be used to challenge a play. This way if a team wants to challenge it must burn a timeout. Thus, taking us to a mandatory commercial break as any other timeout would. No extending the game whatsoever. We still have the same number of commercial breaks as before now with the benefit of a challenge simply triggering one of those predetermined commercial-breaks. This would be a good compromise to give teams the chance to challenge while keeping the length of the game under control.

 

but both you and Easy say your way is better....

How is that a fair game in a discussion of a "fair game"? Don't bother answering that rhetorical question.

I'm fine with what all NBA, NFL and FIBA say. Judgement calls are not reviewable.

I guess you and Easy are not really disagreeing with me...you are just disagreeing with the establishment.

That's OK,,,,but just say it clearly, like I do when I disagree with the establishment

telll me what you really think. And be prepared.

 

That's similar to how I feel. Years ago, I think it was Glenn Robinson who said that officials should get fined for bad calls. I don't mind calls that could go either way or questionable calls, my issue was always lopsided officiating, blatantly benefitting certain teams and certain players. Officials should be penalized in some way when things become too unfair. The officiating hasn't bothered me over the past 2 years.

It's doubtful that a number of challenges would work in the NBA because I've seen many playoff games influenced by lopsided officiating. Another problem is that the media defends NBA officiating compared to other sports and college basketball. The main times I've seen the media make big deals about NBA officiating was when there was some agenda involved. Sometimes, I think the only reason some people started acknowledging the Kings/Lakers series from 2002 is to throw skeptics a bone since that's the most obvious example.