from yahoo sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...at-challenge-based-replay-syst?urn=nba-wp1938 For the most part, the NBA has embraced the role that technology can play in improving referee decisions. Officials can now stop the game to check whether a shot is worth two points or three, the correct amount of time left on the clock, and who touched the ball last before it went out of bounds. It doesn't slow the game down too much, and they almost always get the calls right. To the league's credit, it has gradually brought in new situations for replay instead of allowing all plays to be reviewed in one fell swoop. As David Stern told CBSSports.com's Ken Berger, there will likely be even more allowances for replay in the future. In fact, there may be an NFL-like challenge-based system soon: "Eventually, you may have someone sitting at a desk rather than having a Talmudic discussion of three referees every time there's a disputed play," Stern said. "We might have one person whose job it is to keep the headphones on and always watch. And you might let a coach throw the flag in the last two minutes. We're striving for accuracy. … We have to find a way to speed the game up, and to get it right. That's the most important thing." As Kurt Helin noted at ProBasketballTalk, Ira Winderman wrote a piece earlier this week calling for a similar system. If the league can do this in a streamlined fashion without allowing for reviews of judgment calls like fouls, it's a good decision. It's important for the refs to get calls as right as possible, so long as they can do so without slowing down the game. Whenever increased replay gets brought up, a faction of fans argues that it will take the human element out of the game. While that's true in some cases, a challenge-based system actually introduces more of a human element by requiring coaches to exercise their judgment on when to challenge a call. On top of that, the review official then has to decide if the available camera angles provide indisputable evidence that a call can be overturned. The entire operation deals with issues of human perception and judgment. It is, in practice, a veritable smorgasbord of "the human element." So, yes, I support this decision wholeheartedly if it can be done in a smooth fashion. Getting calls right matters, and a challenge-based system does so in a fascinatingly human way. Email Ball Don't Lie digg add to facebook delicious Twitter
would totally support this.. we wouldn't have been screwed over if we had this when we played the mavs with finley standing out of bounds
Yet more replays and timeouts so we get more advertisements during the game, and it becomes 3.5 hours instead of 2... Yuck.
allowing zones, offensive 3 second calls, replays, now challenges.....Naismith rolling over in his grave right now!!
Great for the fans, the players, and the media Players dont get screwed out of bad calls, fans get to see the right call being made, and the media gets to have an extra commercial break
I don't think this would actually add hardly any timeouts to the game. The way Stern worded it makes me think that challenges would only be allowed in the last two minutes of games, so there wouldn't be that many available plays to even review, and any failed challenge (which I would bet would end up being most of them) would likely cost a timeout, so it would essentially just be them using one of the timeouts they would have used anyway.
This will certainly help to clean up the league's "rigged" image, but man, I don't look forward to more slowdown.
Translation: If you are expecting a fix for flopping, superstar treatment, etc. don't hold your breath.
Pretty much, I don't think it's going to be a drastic change, more of making the process more formal. Like you said, instead of players whining to the refs to look at the replay, they'll make it an official process initiating with the coaches making the challenge. And hopefully they'll add in a few more types of plays that can be looked, although Im not sure which plays they need to be able to look at that they don't already.
Stern is too protective of his refs and doesn't allow any public disagreements with calls. So you let those game/series/season altering calls stand, everyone shuts up, and we save a few minutes. Or we give teams a chance to speak up and object, we use challenges, and get it right. I think those extra few minutes are worth it.
Believe it when you see it You know good and well David Stern has no intention of putting his refs in the line of accountability Think about who's talking for a minute
