NBA Considering Replay Expansion

[Andrew]

More instant replay under review

The NBA will consider an expansion of instant replay that could take effect as early as next season, SI.com has learned. The new application appears to have the blessing of coaches as well as the league office, which will present the concept to its competition committee in June.

Wary of creating regulations that could interrupt the flow of play, the league is examining a limited use of replay that would enable officials to instantly convert a three-point shot into a two-pointer, or vice versa.

"The one area that we're exploring is the three-vs.-two shot call near the end of a game,'' said Stu Jackson, the executive VP of basketball operations for the NBA.

The league currently permits video replay to be used after a game-ending play to help determine whether a shooter's foot was behind the three-point line.

"We're talking about expanding it for some period at the end of the game when there's a natural break in the action, vis-a-vis a timeout or something along those lines,'' Jackson said. "Where a coach could make a challenge, and/or a referee could conduct a review.''

The competition committee considered a similar three-vs.-two replay rule in 2005. "It didn't get a lot of support then,'' said Jackson, who added that the league is taking a second look at this use of replay at the urging of its coaches.

The coaches' rules committee has made a formal recommendation that each team receive one instant-replay challenge to be used in the last two minutes of regulation or overtime. If the challenge of the three-vs.-two call was successful, then the challenging team would retain the right to challenge another play. But if the original call was upheld, then the challenging team would lose either a full timeout or -- if all those timeouts had been spent -- a 20-second timeout. A team without timeouts could not issue a challenge.

I was a bit skeptical of the idea before it was implemented back in 2002 but it's turned out to be a good addition to the game and the proposal to expand it sounds like a good idea as well. I especially like the proposed approach to challenging calls since coaches will need to be careful about making use of the opportunity, else they'll lose the chance to do so again on a subsequent play that may be more critical to the outcome. Limiting challenges to timeouts and barring teams who have exhausted their timeouts from making challenges should avoid slowing the game down, at least any more than a timeout chess match in the final minute currently does.

[Sauru]

i wish the league would give coaches 1 reply to review any call made by the ref, even if it would interfer with the game. so many bad calls in the game now its not even funny. of course the idea would require alot of thinking to prevent teams from useing the call as nothing more than a stoppage in play, say to prevent a fast break or a mismatch

[Patr1ck]

They need some "scoring" referees who will not officiate real time calls but correct any misjudgements based on replays.

I'm not sure if this will work unless it is only on a limited basis. Especially if there is a long sequence between dead balls and a coach wants to challenge something that happened 6 or 7 possessions ago. What do they do? Apply street rules, like the next call is ours?

[benji]

I think you would be required to challenge the call immediately in some formal matter (instead of just screaming at the ref), with the review coming at the next dead ball.

You could setup a system where you get one call a half, but can bank the first half call into the second half for two to use there. But lose a timeout if you lose both challenges.

I think it would be required to limit the types of calls that can be challenged too. Maybe you could even use your two challenges to reverse a second technical, keeping your player in the game or something, at expense of the challenges plus maybe a timeout.

[Skills]

It doesn't really sound like anything "new" since the NFL uses this too.
But it could benefit for those coaches who just don't know when to shut up.
Really though, is this necessary for a fast paced type of game?

[shadowgrin]

Really though, is this necessary for a fast paced type of game?

Brilliant! The NBA might as well eliminate timeouts to make the game faster.

[BIG GREEN]

It's the reason why most nba fanatics are not also NFL fans...like myself...I don't like a fucking break or time out every 2 fucking seconds.

[Sauru]

i love the nfl, they do a far getter job (not perfect mind you) of running thier games.

[Andrew]

I'm not sure if this will work unless it is only on a limited basis. Especially if there is a long sequence between dead balls and a coach wants to challenge something that happened 6 or 7 possessions ago. What do they do? Apply street rules, like the next call is ours?

If it's restricted to the final two minutes of the fourth quarter and overtime and the challenge is whether a regular field goal or a three pointer it shouldn't be much of a hassle. Referees can already elect to overrule an earlier call on whether a shot was a three or a two as long as it's made before the end of the quarter it came in, so this system would basically allow a team to make a formal challenge and use the instant replay to ensure the right call is made.

Hopefully it won't be an issue that comes up every game but it'll be good to have the system in place when such disputes arise.

[benji]

I would care more about foul calls to challenge, and anything else that loses the possession.

[Sauru]

I would care more about foul calls to challenge, and anything else that loses the possession.

100% agree

[Andrew]

Those are the kind of calls that would definitely need to be challenged immediately, since there'd be little point challenging them two or three possessions later. Rulings on perimeter shots are still significant though; whether a shot is ruled a two or a three could ultimately be the difference between a win, loss or overtime, even if it doesn't come right at the buzzer.

[benji]

I do not think under any circumstances should you be allowed to challenge a call any other time than immediately. You can't think three possessions later you would really like if that one shot was a three pointer and challenge.

Rulings on possession loss are still significant though; whether an offensive foul was really one, or who the ball really went off of, etc. could ultimately be the difference between a win, loss or overtime, even if it doesn't come right at the buzzer.

[Andrew]

As far as not challenging the ruling on a perimeter shot immediately, I meant that it could be done during a subsequent timeout or dead ball (with a timeout being charged if the ruling stands, as indicated in the proposal), similar to the way referees may currently change a ruling before the end of the quarter. Since there isn't necessarily a stop in play when a shot is made and the team disputing the shot as a two or three pointer might not have the ball immediately afterwards and cannot call timeout having become the team on defense, it's conceivable that at least one possession could go by before they have an opportunity to formally challenge the ruling.

I agree that it certainly wouldn't make any sense to challenge an out of bounds or foul call two or three possessions later, so allowing that would just be silly.

[benji]

I think the coach should be required to formally challenge, in some manner, within the end of the subsequent possession, with the review waiting until the next dead ball. There doesn't need to be a stop in play for the challenge to be made during play, similarly to how coaches currently do not have to wait for dead balls to call timeouts. You could construct the rule so that if the team inbounds/shoots again upon getting the ball off a make/miss, they lose the right to challenge a call, and no matter what they inbound in the backcourt upon the conclusion of the review.

Allowing the team to challenge after using another possession would be unfathomable. If they use another possession, they forfeit their challenge. If they create the challenge in regards to shots, they absolutely need to open it up to possession challenges.

[Andrew]

That's more how I envisioned it. I guess I should have used the word "review" rather than "challenge" since reviewing the tape is what would be taking place during the stoppage and the part of the process that's actually delaying the game, which the league seems to be hoping to minimise should they expand the instant replay rules.

When the ball goes out of bounds or there's a foul, there's no real problem. Play has stopped so the challenge could be made immediately, the review could take place and the ruling either upheld or overturned with the team making the challenge penalised a timeout in the case of the former.

I'm not sure teams would always have the opportunity to challenge the ruling on a perimeter shot and being able to stop the play while the opposition is bringing the ball up the floor (and trying to take advantage in transition) doesn't seem fair, which is why I believe allowing the review to come at the next dead ball or when the team on defense gets the ball back after a basket could work, even if the ball is in play before a coach can utter the words to make a formal challenge.

I suppose there's some risk/reward there that would keep teams from doing it too much and as you suggested, restricting the inbound to the backcourt for the offensive team who has just challenged the last basket scored against them would negate the advantage of an impromptu timeout.

If sensibly limited, it probably won't dominate games anyway but I like the fact they're considering expanding the instant replay rulings.