That drives me crazy as well. What they need to do, is remove the incentive to turn the game into a FT contest. I'd like to see them try a system where on any defensive foul in the last 2 minutes, the offensive team gets the FTs AND keeps possesion with a new 24 second clock. Imagine...teams expected to win by playing tough, clean defense and getting the rebounds. What a concept!
what you reduce it to is no longer a sports game with human error. you turn it into a micro-examined outcome. ref blunders are part of the game. instant replay will eventually go further and further and its going to kill the momentum of games. What's next, are they going to have tracking devices on the players to track illegal defense if they leave their "zone"? Its going to get more and more rediculous. They will not be able to call the games 100% accurately, and they will selectively use instant replays for only certain fouls and not for others. they're going to have to review every blocking foul and charge?
I'd like to have the human error be from the teams themselves and not the refs. I'd love to have floor, ball and rim sensors. I think it would improve the game greatly.
That's like saying disease is part of life. Yes, by necessity. I'm in favour of medical science making disease less of an issue and allowing for healthier lives. I don't see the point of embracing bad things just because they've always been around. I don't think they need players to wear tracking devices. Sensors in the floor, lasers can achieve things like that. The ideal situation would be no referees at all and penalties (fouls and violations) called as they happen by sensors. That would be faster, fairer and wouldn't hurt the flow of the game at all. Keeping human referees and having them replay things will, though I do like the challenge system to keep it manageable.
Basketball is a game of momentum. Using instant replay gives oppossing coaches more oppotunities to slow or stop the other team's momentum. Maybe give each coach two challanges per half. Or maybe two per game.
do you realize how shitty the game would be if they strictly went by the book with no interpretation of things? Play would stop more and more frequnetly as even minor fouls will be called..moreso than they are now.
They can adjust the sensors to the game they want to show, and the players would adjust themselves. Players and coaches base how the team plays based on what they can get away with. How shitty is the game when referees call fouls based on some silly preferential set of rules like "how veteran the player is," "how big a star the player is," "how many fouls the player has," etc? Would calling it fairly but more strictly be more or less shitty? That isn't clear to me.
Calling it by the book, for every foul, will kill the game. The NBA officiating is terrible right now, but the rememdy is further training and accountability on the officials, not to bring instant replay or its inevitable counterparts into the mix.
That might be true (I'm not certain, because I know the rule book allows for a certain amount of contact), but the book could always be changed to better reflect the game as it is called today. The point would be that the calls would be more consistent and blind to who committed the infraction.
Maxiep is absolutely right here. The penalties for the coach ensure the game keeps moving. A ref on each end just watching for illegal defense and three seconds makes a lot of sense. iWatas
If they do adust to the calls, you would have a league where there would be absoultely ZERO contact whatsoever. Defense will not be played as hard as every reach in, every hand on the body, every slight body bump will be met with a foul to stop play. it will be a very lame thing to watch.
But the offensive player could no longer create the contact as well. To see the game played where being skilled was more important than being strong wouldn't be the worst thing ever.
i don't think instant replay will really work in basketball like it does it sports like football and baseball. basketball is a sport of continuous action. it isn't split up into short bursts like football and baseball. reviewing calls several times a game would severely disrupt the flow of the game. i'm definitely in favor of replay being used to review flagrant fouls, end of shot clock, end of clock, 2 or 3(at the next timeout), or those kind of situations but to allow coaches to challenge personal fouls would be taking it too far.
One possibility for personal foul challenges would be that they could be challenged at time outs (or ends of quarters). It wouldn't change the score, if the foul resulted in free throws, but if the challenge was upheld, the player's foul total and maybe the team foul total (if applicable--it wouldn't be if the challenge happened between quarters) would be reduced by 1. That might be a compromise that wouldn't affect flow. The biggest problem with bad fouls is how it affects playing time for certain players and, to a lesser extent, how much sooner a team is in the penalty.
I agree with only reviewing (2 vs 3, shot-clock violation, flagrant foul, etc.) for the first 46 minutes. However, I would add these things in for the last 2 minutes: * Out-of-bounds violation. Someone stepping out or a ball being tipped. * Kick-ball violation. * 8 second violation (if not for the entire game). I don't think you can review subjective calls such as fouls or traveling.
You could also have an instance where Player A commits his 5th foul, but doesn't get called for it. Two possessions later he gets called for his 5th foul, but then during the timeout, they conclude he fouled on the first possession, and is now disqualified. The player would not have been out on the court had the coach known he had 5 fouls, so that isn't really fair.
It doesn't have to allow for adding fouls, just removing fouls. That will lead to fewer fouls, yes, but having players on the floor more (without abandoning or undermining the idea of fouls) isn't a particularly bad thing. There would only be a limited number of challenges allowed and all of them wouldn't be upheld. It's just to prevent a particularly egregious and impactful bad call.
