today's Lakers vs Wolves game is proof that whoever invents a way to replace referees will be a millionaire... how many bad calls can these morons make? i'd rather have a blind grandmother out there officiating than these zerbra striped chimps... either they are morons or Stern told the refs to give the Lakers every chance they can get to win the game...
i'm going with the latter. there's no way the refs are actually that stupid/bad and there's no way they're accidentally that stupid/bad for one team. the fact it always happens shows the nba doesn't exactly have a problem with it.
Just imagine the TV ratings the rest of the playoffs if the Lakers with their 30M viewer fanship are gone fishing.....Stern would jump off a bridge.
Simply...have a room upstairs with 5 or 6 guys watching the game from every angle possible. They push a button if there is a foul. There is one ref still on the court. He is equipped with (a) a whistle sounding machine and (b) an electronic pad on his wrist. When 2 of the 5 guys upstairs push the button for a foul, it automatically blows the whistle on teh ref on the court. The guys upstairs indicate the player #, whether or not the shot counts, whose ball it is (if it is out of bounds, etc.), whether it was a three pointer or two pointer, etc, etc.. This information is relayed to the ref on the court's wireless pad on his wrist. This helps in a couple of areas. First, you don't have that switching referee position as you go from one end of the court to another, which causes so much discrepencacy in how a game is called. Second, the "ref" is more likely to get a call right. Third, less technicals, although these can still be given - by the ref on the floor and by the guys upstairs if necessary. Fourth, use of instantaneous instan replay where possible. Obviously, waiting for a call is a no-no, and wouldn't happen here either. But in those instances when someone is fouled, throws up a shot, which is then blocked but it's really goaltending, or something similar where the ref has a second or two do to game stoppage, a more accurate call could be made off replay. Numerous other advantages.
Much too much margin for error. I vote for one per player. 10 referees, you concentrate on your player, period. Oh, and you need a couple more, one for each shot clock.... Oh, and another for each coach and bench. You'd probably want one as a rover, for those unruly fans as well.
That won't work, HP. Those dummies will get confused when the matchups get switched in a PnR. 10 refs is the way to go. Combining this with JayZ's idea, we really don't need a whistle-blowing official on the floor. Each of the 10 refs calls the game upstairs and uses the announcers' sound system to blow the whistle and announce the call. All we need to put on the floor are some bouncers (former NBA rejects are good candidates for this job) to enforce the calls and to act as the objects of verbal (and maybe physical) abuse from players, coaches and fans.
Four sounds reasonable, with another two watching the monitors on the sideline and watching the clock.
