Instant Replay

[Ruff Ryder]

Do you think that Instant Replay should be put into the game for use at any time? Right now it's just for shots at the end of quarters and to see if a 3 is a 2.


I think that it should be. After all, we don't want this to happen again.


They should make a system, like in the NFL, where you get a certain number of "challenges", say 8 or so. They let you challenge a call by the ref, and if you're wrong, you lose a timeout.

[.]

I think its a good idea. I would be great in situations like when Kobe made that 3-pointer in the All-Star game, which was count as a 2 and when the Refs robbed the Nuggets in the Lakers win with that shot from Andre Miller or Voshon Lennard, dont really remember, they thought it was a airball, but in the replays you could see that the ball touched the rim. The refs are doing a terrible job lately, and I think this would improve the game

[alexboom]

everyone wants a fair game. instant replays can provide a play for refs very easily, and almost immediately. What are they waiting for to implement it ???

The "Challenge" Idea is a good one too, ruffryder8

[Andrew]

I'm not really sure about this one. On one hand, it does allow for a review of calls and a fair decision to be made. On the other hand, I think it would also take something away from the sport. Don't get me wrong, I hate terrible calls as much as the next sports fan. It takes away some of the challenge.

For now, I'd have to say the instant replay at the end of the quarter is sufficient, though perhaps it would be worth giving the same idea a try at other times.

A similar idea is used in cricket and in rugby league here in Australia. The referee/umpire can appeal to an official watching the game on a monitor when there is a difficult call. This might be a better alternative than letting the officials on the court watch the replay and adjust the call.

[Ruff Ryder]

The "Challenge" Idea is a good one too, ruffryder8

Thank the NFL, not me.

On the other hand, I think it would also take something away from the sport. Don't get me wrong, I hate terrible calls as much as the next sports fan. It takes away some of the challenge.

That's where the Challenge rule and strategy kicks in. Like in the NFL, you get less challenges than to's. If you make the refs review a call and they were right the first time, you lose the challenge and to. If you were right, you get the call but still lose a time out. Maybe it should be like 4 Challenges per game so that strategy plays more of a part in using it.

[wangster]

I'm not sure if they should implement a Challenge system like the NFL but seeing what happened in the Denver-Lakers game, I think teams should be allowed some way to challenge calls in the last few minutes of a game that could potentially change the outcome of the game. Of course, all calls made throughout the game could potentially change the outcome but you really only remember the calls that happen in the last two minutes. The way I see it, whatever happens in the first 46 minutes is sort of a preparation that leads up to the last 2 crucial minutes. Even if you're bombarded with bad calls in the first 46 minutes, you play through them and just keep making efforts to win the game. Only in the last two minutes can the significance of any missed/bad calls be truly evaluated so even though I agree teams should be allowed to challenge some calls, I don't think they should challenge calls unless it's near the end of the game.

[Old School Fool]

I thought they have Instant Replay?

Explain that Replay of Ricky Davis' mlame dunk....against L.A.


Just kidding

[Andrew]

Limiting the number of challenges would be necessary. I like wangster's idea of limiting challenges to the final two minutes. As wangster noted calls at any time can prove to be costly as they may become the turning point in the game, but a bad call in a close game during the final two minutes is more likely to hand the game to one of the teams.

What kind of calls should be reviewed? Obviously shots that are incorrectly signalled as being a three pointer or regular field goal, but what about shot clock violations, out of bounds calls, fouls, backcourt violations and so on?

[Kozachok]

Yes


You know how many games would have been different?

[GloveGuy]

I'm not too fond of the idea. It's fine with football because we see more commercials and people on the sideline doing shit than actual guys playing football. There's a break every play and it's very slow moving. A couple of refs looking through a camera once or twice doesn't make a difference.

But in basketball we only actually stop watching when there's a timeout or a foul or something. It's constantly going aside from those breaks. I just don't like the idea of another system where we'll have to watch a replay of one play fourty times before the ref makes a call to give a team one point or just the possession.

Some refs are consistently bad or biased throughout the game, while some will just make a mistake once or twice late in the game. If a ref is consistently bad throughout the whole game, and a challenge system was implemented, then people would start complaining that teams aren't given enough challenges.

I wouldn't mind having a fourth "replay" ref on the sideline who can decide the final verdict on a blatantly bad call or a situation where two refs have different views and can't negotiate together.

[Ruff Ryder]

I wouldn't mind having a fourth "replay" ref on the sideline who can decide the final verdict on a blatantly bad call or a situation where two refs have different views and can't negotiate together.

That would be a good idea because half of the time when a ref makes a bad call we, the viewers, get to look at it at least twice before the game resumes. This would eliminate a lot of T's.

I think a ref should just watch the game through the monitor on the scorer's table and if he notices that a bad call is made, then he can go and consult the other ref.

[Andrew]

I wouldn't mind having a fourth "replay" ref on the sideline who can decide the final verdict on a blatantly bad call or a situation where two refs have different views and can't negotiate together.

I also like that idea, appealing to a fourth official watching the game on a monitor. It should be up to the officials on the court to appeal to the fourth referee though.

[hmm]

.

[Ruff Ryder]

hey .........................Whats going on ?
a thing like this would kill the speed of the game.No tempo no game.
it is a horrible idea.Slowing the game down everytime............
But at the other hand if they punish the unnecassary or to slow game challenges with a timeout then it would be fair.

I know it would slow down the game. Even though the game is slow right now. But punishing the teams with loss of TO's is fair. Plus, it would take away a lot of T's.

[Andrew]

If it was up to the on court officials to appeal to a fourth referee only when they cannot agree on a difficult call, it wouldn't slow the game down too much.

[cklitsie]

i know people dont wanna get robbed and stuff but its still a game
if they would do anything like this it would become more and more like NBA Live and we dont want that to happen, would we?

[Ruff Ryder]

i know people dont wanna get robbed and stuff but its still a game
if they would do anything like this it would become more and more like NBA Live and we dont want that to happen, would we?

Well.......You have to look at it on the other side. It would make NBA Live seem more realistic and more like the NBA.

[magius]

the replay would really really slow the game down though because we all know that coaches and players always think they're right and the game would probably devolve to the point where a strand of hair glancing a follow-through would be debated

since we're talking about 'game improvements' i think the nba should add a new +/- statistic like the nhl...... if you dont know what im talking about, well, basically, if you're +10 in a game that means that while you were on the court your team outscored the other team by 10, if you're -5.... you're team was outscored by the opposition by 5 while you were on the floor. i think this would be a good statistic in defining some of the intangibles underrated players provide or even amplify the importance of some superstars over others.

and it would also be interesting if 2 assists were given for every point as long as the 2nd assist was around 4-5 (or more) seconds before the point and the first one 1-3. i think it would be a good statistic because firstly maybe it'll cut down some of this me-first attitude because lets face it, a lot of players priorities are money and statistics. but more importantly it would again displays the importance of that guy we dont really talk about, but whom sets up the guy who sets up the guy who scores -- knowing your angles and understanding when to rotate to someone with good passing lanes is essential. the 2nd assist would be a seperate statistic then the first though.

[Andrew]

the replay would really really slow the game down though because we all know that coaches and players always think they're right and the game would probably devolve to the point where a strand of hair glancing a follow-through would be debated

But it wouldn't slow the game down too much if it was up to the officials to consult the instant replay or a fourth official watching the game on a monitor. The fourth official/instant replay would only be used during a game if the on court officials could not agree on a difficult call (and at the end of a quarter if necessary).

The game would be fine without extending the instant replay calls to any play, since bad/controversial calls are part of competitive sport. But if the NBA did decide to make instant replay officiating a larger part of the game, I would prefer they used the method I just described.