RealGM

Allow teams to challenge calls a la NFL.

HIRE THE FIBA officials...

then everyone will realize how AWFUL they are, shut the f up and even tim donahey will have a job back...aka Marv albert style.....(if the prez can have monica, so can I)

This won't work in a game like basketball

Ladies and Gentelmen....I present to you ROBO-REF!

get rid of stern

/thread

I would'nt mind a 1-challenge system implemented... but it'd be extremely difficult for the refs to review a block/charge play.

Heat3 wrote:Ladies and Gentelmen....I present to you ROBO-REF!

I guarantee you'd still find some people crying about how "Stern programmed that ref so it'd rig the game in favour of [insert opposing teams name here]".

Mr. Savage wrote:This won't work in a game like basketball

Yes, because obviously slowing down the game footage frame by frame, and viewing calls from multiple angles does not work.

No more refs. National Basketball Pickup League.

chrice wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yes, because obviously slowing down the game footage frame by frame, and viewing calls from multiple angles does not work.

Football was slow enough to begin with, but the challenge system made it totally irrelevant to me outside of fantasy football interests. The idea at least works in football, because one play/bad call can make or break it.

Hoops is about runs, ebb and flow. I don't really see it working unless it's a system where any call can be questioned, in which case some games would take days to decide.

There is too much discretion in basketball officiating.

Walt Cronkite wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


The idea at least works in football, because one play/bad call can make or break it.

Same thing for basketball. An incorrect call can mean a turnover for the wrong team, and an extra possession for the other. That can potentially be a 4 to 6 point swing, not to mention if there's a foul on a key player. I'd rather have some sort of challenge system than none at all, even if it means slowing the game down a few minutes. Maybe they can limit it to just playoff clinches and post season games.

I see nothing wrong with allowing coaches 2 challenges per game.

Yeah, it would slow the game down by 10 minutes or so, but it would fix so many more issues than it creates.

NFL has discrete plays. NBA is a continuous game for the most part. Challenges wouldn't work imo.

no more fouls

Heat3 wrote:NFL has discrete plays. NBA is a continuous game for the most part. Challenges wouldn't work imo.

You could put stipulations on it. IE, only allow challenges after a made call and not after a missed call. That way, there is a stoppage of play.

chrice wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Same thing for basketball. An incorrect call can mean a turnover for the wrong team, and an extra possession for the other. That can potentially be a 4 to 6 point swing, not to mention if there's a foul on a key player. I'd rather have some sort of challenge system than none at all, even if it means slowing the game down a few minutes. Maybe they can limit it to just playoff clinches and post season games.

While this is true, I'd say it's more the exception than the rule in comparison to football. There's only, what, 120 plays in a 60 minute nfl game vs 144 in a 48 minute nfl game?

What defines "playoff clinches"?

miller31time wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You could put stipulations on it. IE, only allow challenges after a made call and not after a missed call. That way, there is a stoppage of play.

But what if it's a missed call on a loose ball foul? No one has possession, no whistle has been blown until the committing team scores, but the looseball over the back missed call would've fouled out a player on the committing team. So you foul him out and do what, jump ball at the closest ft line? How much does that help out if there's 2 seconds left and you're now down 2 instead of tied, but you have to win the tip AND get it up the court... wouldn't you just prefer to inbounds and hope for a 3 or advance the ball with a to and hit a shot to go to ot?

Walt Cronkite wrote:But what if it's a missed call on a loose ball foul? No one has possession, no whistle has been blown until the committing team scores, but the looseball over the back missed call would've fouled out a player on the committing team. So you foul him out and do what, jump ball at the closest ft line? How much does that help out if there's 2 seconds left and you're now down 2 instead of tied, but you have to win the tip AND get it up the court... wouldn't you just prefer to inbounds and hope for a 3 or advance the ball with a to and hit a shot to go to ot?

I'm sort of confused by your circumstance. If the whistle isn't blown, you can't challenge. Yeah, it might be advantageous for one team and not for another, but that's just one instance. There are far more where implementing a challenge during stoppages in play is to the game's benefit.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's impossible to get every call right, but at least try to get as many correct as you can without taking away from the game and bringing it to a screeching halt.

Yea, I didn't write it very well.

I guess my point is that the calls are by nature subjective. What's a flop? What's a blocking foul? What's a charge? How long do you have to be set to have position in order to draw the charge? Is the hand part of the ball?

When refs do the conference thing, do it at a video screen and make the right call. But if a call is made and it turns out that the defender only hits the shooter's wrist do you wait before the first ft is shot to make sure the foul was actually a foul?

Suggesting that a challenge can only occur when the whistle is blown doesn't solve the constantly complained about no-calls, which can alter a game just as much as blown ones.

edited b/c I wrote "by nature objective"