The NFL has it, the NHL just instored it this year, why can't the NBA have it? How many times you see bad calls in a game that could affect the outcome? 2 coach's challenge per team, per game seems reasonable. It shouldnt stretch out the game by a long time
What are you trying to solve? In the NFL, coaches are not allowed to challenge a play if under the two minute warning. In the NBA, challenging something amounts to roughly 1-100th of the combined score in a game, very relatively inconsequential vs NFL plays -- thus, two challenges are much different in the NFL. The NBA has several automatically reviewable events. Probably more so than the NFL. The NBA does not allow review of player fouls for the purpose of changing the foul call. Likewise, the NFL does not allow review of penalties. So, what are you trying to fix, since: NFL does not allow challenges within two minute warning Single plays in NBA are about 1-100th of the total score, NBA automatically reviews everything it can in the last two minutes. What would you challenge that isn't already reviewed? NFL does not allow reviews of Penalties, so should NBA allow review of foul calls?
Absolutely not. When the refs go to the monitors now for whatever reason it already kills momentum in the game. And there's times where it takes minutes instead of quick looks. No need to add to it
The review of calls already slow the game down as is (it is a necessity though). This would be too much.
I definitely would include coach's challenges. I can think of two potential game winning plays where Harden was blatantly fouled on his way to the ring - coach's challenge would turn those two decisions. I can see uses for it definitely. - the coach challenges - the head official brings both head coaches together to watch the replay - the other two officials are each with the starting 5 of each team who remain on court - they watch the replay from a few angles and the coach who challenged gets a chance to speak - the lead official than gives the other coach a chance for a rebuttal If it's clear as day like those Harden fouls - it takes less than 2 minutes at the absolute max and the right outcome is achieved. Personally I don't care at all if an additional minute is added onto a game to make sure the decision is correct.
the challenge system hasn't really increased the time of other sports, maybe 1 or 2 minutes at most on a 2 and a half hour event, giant red herring to protect incompetence, even FIFA has included it, freaking FIFA. make it use a team timeout if unsuccessful, if successful it uses the referee timeout first, in most circumstances it would have zero effect, like the nfl if you run yourself out of timeouts, you run yourself out of challenges. The idea that a potential cpl minutes extra to the odd game here of there has more value than a more transparent outcome to all games might be the most ludicrous argument of them all though.
I disagree in the sense that a lot/majority of NBA games come down to crunch time. Either team can still win the game with under 5 minutes left. Often, either team can still win with under 2 minutes left. And that's ignoring the fact that crazy 13 in 35 stuff can happen once in a lifetime... I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking about the average game. When you factor that in, your not talking about 1-100th of an impact to a game. You're talking about something very important to a game. And this is why I think it makes a ton of sense. I can point to plenty of clear examples, but one of the most painful of all was obviously the Michael Finley out of bounds ball save. Sure, the Rockets would have been down by 3 still, no guarantee of that changing the outcome of the game... but the Rockets had momentum, that was a game 5 on he road where a win would have put them up 3-2. I personally believe that a call like that changed the course of Rockets history. I think that call had a meaningful impact on the Rockets losing that series. That's not an excuse argument. They lost the game, and, deservingly, the series. It's just an example where you'd ABSOLUTELY want to have a coaches challenge.
That play is still not reviewable by instant replay rules. The coach would not be allowed to "throw a flag" on the court. Plus, in the NFL, coaches cannot challenge any play under the two-minute warning. So, I ask again, what are we trying to achieve by allowing 2 coach challenges. Sounds like you really are talking about changing what is reviewable or not. imo, the NBA refs will review every reviewable play in the final two-minutes, if not the entire game. I don't see what coach challenges achieve, since the NBA is really good at using instant replay on every reviewable play, already. In fact, Sterm and Stu Jackson mentioned coaching challenges back in 2013, but what they were after is to do less referee-initiated reviews and make the coaches request them, to speed up the process. Sounds like that's counter to what this thread wants to achieve.
The problem starts and ends with accountability. With football (soccer) in Holland, referees who make a huge mistake are investigated and if found 'guilty', they will not be assigned to a game between the teams that were playing and or a few games of either team period. Referees are available for interviews, they find great shame or guilt themselves after a bad call that changed the outcome of the game so why not in the NBA? Call it conspiracy all you want, I truly believe that the only logical explanation is because then the facade of best referees in the world created under Stern will collapse. That is why I will never respect Stern, regardless of how well he did in other areas. He has single-handedly brought it upon the NBA that many fans have doubts about the integrity of the game. Conspiracy theories are born solely because of Stern's dictatorship. Outsiders / non-basketball fans already think the NBA is a joke, scripted and obviously see star calls and all that. As far as reviewing plays, it will not change much again because they put it in the hands of the same referees who are protected by the league. That is takes too much time makes it even worse. Just let the guys at the replay center tell a representative or an official at the scorer's table what the correct call is in case of doubt. That's why I never watch live and I'm glad I don't live in the US. Times of games have gone way up, from under 2 hours regularly in the 90s to now 2 and half to 3 hours easily. That all needs to change, but is secondary to the real issue.
You could make it a team technical foul (or clear path if that was occurring) if you incorrectly challenge a no call. The point of a challenge system is to discourage its misuse, so its necessary to remove any benefits of use for other purposes.
Easy way to use this would be to require the team use a full time out no matter what the result was. A team would be less likely to delay the game and burn a time out early in the game; most teams would only use this replay system option in the final moments of a games.
What would they review? Refs already review things like out of bounds. The other stuff in a NBA game is subjective like fouls and what not.
No more automatic review. Only coach challenges. You lose a timeout for each challenge that isn't overturn. And you can challenge ANY thing but you must be specific on what you challenge. Speed up the game. Coaching job is important (oh no Rockets ). And less eruption from some coaches to every calls.
