Would a challenge system work for the NBA?

I just disagree. I think refs have little impact other then to control the tempo of the game. The better team adjusts to the refs. The lesser team whines.

It's funny how a team that cries about the refs even if it has the lead tends to lose the game from what I observe. Sacramento lost because they couldn't execute when they needed to. The Lakers could. And that's all that matters...can you score or prevent a score when you really have to. Forget about the previous 47 minutes...what separates great teams from just good ones is having that ability and confidence that you can get a stop when you have to, and at the very least, that you score in the clutch situations.

Bring in the refs will just take away the excitement of the game while an exciting play gets deliberated for 10 minutes. Just suck the energy out of the arena with a few minutes left!

 

NBA refs aren't nearly as bad as advertised. In fact, they get the call right most of the time.

On every possession in very single NBA game, there are multiple rules infractions (pushing, hip checks, traveling, palming, etc.), but refs don't call them all. Why? Because refs (usually) only call high-leverage infractions. If they called everything, games would take 10 hours and the NBA would die.

They're not perfect, no. But if you lose the game because a ref missed a single handcheck out of 500 that night, you shouldn't win anyway. It means you got the call the other 499 times.

Very rarely does a game's outcome truly swing on a single bad call. And if it does, tough beans. If you had hit that wide open 15-footer in the second quarter, you would have won anyway.

Players who blame referees for the outcome of a game they have 99-percent control over are just deflecting blame from themselves.

 

if you mean execute the referees, then i agree. otherwise, they lost game 6 (not game 7) b/c the lakers shot 27 free throws in the 4th quarter on 16 foul calls. the nba and refs decided the lakers would not lose that game and that there would be a game 7. that was pretty much apparent to anybody, even lakers fans, watching that game. hell, ralph nader for some reason even tried to have the game investigated it was so bad.

tough beans? LOL. what a horribly stupid way of looking at the situation. i suppose no one should protest or contest anything that is unfair in life. you should've just done more. tough beans that the system screwed you. your health insurance company won't pay for covered medication? well, you should've just not gotten sick, whiner.

you can only control what you do on the court. if what you did and what the other team did dictated that you should win the game and some outside party incorrectly does something to give it to the other team, tough beans?

would you be in favor of the refs simply giving one team 4 points at the start of the game for no reason? it sounds like you would, and if the other team lost by 3 you'd just say they should've hit more shots to make up for that completely unfair disadvantage. strange logic.

 

I'm all in favor for a challenge system. It wouldn't slow down the game as much as it already is.. with all the complaining the players do after calls. Also, since if the challenge fails it's one less time out, so it would even out fairly well. It would also add drama to the game, meaning more chances for he crowd to cheer or boo (at the conclusion of the challenge). I also agree that the ref effect isn't that dramatic in a broad sense. But at the end of a game those calls become magnified and a coach will have a decision to make.. call a challenge and void the last time out or not risk it and keep the last timeout. So this gives the coaches more chances to shine and show that they know what it takes to be a winner.

 

Here are some reason people give for not having a challenge system:

1. It slows down the game.
2 challenges per game won't slow the game down that much.

2. Officiating mistakes are part of the game.
The NFL used to use that excuse. I think it's just a stupid excuse for not trying everything reasonble to improve. Even tennis uses technology. Did anyone say that mistakes of out-of-bound call was part of the game, so if you got the wrong call, tough bean?

3. Good teams adjust to officiating.
It's like saying that if you win you are good. That doesn't say much. We all know that good teams win most of the times. That doesn't eliminate the fact that some games are decided by bad calls, not by the players.
Besides, why should teams have to adjust to officiating? It's the officiating that should "adjust" to a consistent rule system. Players should be concentrating on the game, not on how the refs call the game. It's just bad basketball.

 

To think that the refs conspire to make one team win over the other is ridiculous. The stakes are too high for the NBA to have that...which is why Stern went ballistic on JVG. I doubt the NBA would risk ruining their product and faith in that product to get a few more ratings points for one season. One thing David Stern is not - and that's short-sighted.

Calls don't go your way all the time, but usually, an aggressive team playing hard with fire, that desperation, will get the calls while a team playing prevent will not. This is why Yao gets called for fouls while he just stands there, and doesn't when he goes for the block. When you play aggressively, it shifts the focus from the failure of the defender or offensive player to the guy on the other side...confidence adds credibility. That's why composure is so key. And why champions know that it is key.

The refs are human, and they will go with the guys which play like champions, not the guys who whine like losers. Its why you teach your team not to whine and to focus on the game. It's PART of the game.

Sacramento lost because it lacked championship metal, not because of the refs. Switch the refs, you'd get the same result.

 

Calls are blown throughout every game, either as phantoms or no-calls, but are for the most part even between the teams and minor in their impact. I'd guess that it's about once every 20 games or so that a blown call plays a major role in deciding the outcome in the closing minutes.

Also, if a replay is being done for a visiting team, the reaction of the home crowd will be downright hostile. You really want to avoid this happening, and avoid allowing the crowd to focus their anger on the visiting bench.

So, I would say:
1. Replays should not be allowed until the final minute of play, if not the final 30 seconds.

2. Replays can only be called for by the referees themselves or "the man upstairs."

Again, there's no need for replays most of the time. Largely, teams upset with officiating after a game are mad about how a certain player (Shaq, Yao, etc) was called or how physical the play was allowed to be, not about individual calls (the point of instant replay). Don't let coaches call for instant replays (will certainly not be a crowd favorite) just because they can (which they will do no matter what if given the option).

Evan