Bogus! If you win a challenge you should keep it

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

What say you

  • Total voters
    42
This question is so obvious but I guess the league doesn't think so. If you catch the refs slipping you shouldn't be given the opportunity to catch the same crew slipping again?!? That's some serious bullshit! If you get your first challenge right you keep it and so on. If the refs fuck up 20 calls in the game and you catch them on all 20 so badly that they have to overturn them, shame on them, not shame on the coach that caught them.
 
blazerkor said:
This question is so obvious but I guess the league doesn't think so. If you catch the refs slipping you shouldn't be given the opportunity to catch the same crew slipping again?!? That's some serious bullshit! If you get your first challenge right you keep it and so on. If the refs fuck up 20 calls in the game and you catch them on all 20 so badly that they have to overturn them, shame on them, not shame on the coach that caught them.
Click to expand...
You have very accurately explained the reason the NBA does not permit more than one challenge per team per game.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Yes, should be able to challenge until one fails. Not the teams fault if the refs make the clearly wrong call.
Click to expand...

At a certain point, the refs will stop reversing calls within the same game simply out of pride. There’s no way any coach is going to get 3 successful challenges in one game. Also I can imagine this will kill the pacing of a game if both coaches potentially have unlimited challenge power.

I think a maximum of two challenges would be fair game though. If challenge fails, you’re out. If challenge is successful, you get to keep one in your pocket.
 
Last edited:
Hey said:
At a certain point, the refs will stop reversing calls within the same game simply out of pride. There’s no way any coach is going to get 3 successful challenges in one game. Also I can imagine this will kill the pacing of a game if both coaches potentially have unlimited challenge power.

I think a maximum of two challenges would be fair game though. If challenge fails, you’re out. If challenge is successful, you get to keep one in your pocket.
Click to expand...
That's all I'm asking for.
 
BBert said:
You have very accurately explained the reason the NBA does not permit more than one challenge per team per game.
Click to expand...
And fuck them for it. These guys have always held the refs up as some kind of governing body above reproach but they need to be held accountable by the NBA front office and even more so in real time by the coaches. If the coach blows a challenge then they can fuck off and watch the rest of the game regardless of how egregiously the refs screw up crucial calls but as long as the coach is right, let that coach keep twirling their finger and challenging those calls.
 
Hey said:
At a certain point, the refs will stop reversing calls within the same game simply out of pride. There’s no way any coach is going to get 3 successful challenges in one game. Also I can imagine this will kill the pacing of a game if both coaches potentially have unlimited challenge power.

I think a maximum of two challenges would be fair game though. If challenge fails, you’re out. If challenge is successful, you get to keep one in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Fuck that, IMO and no offense. The refs can do that shit if they want but it won't just pass by like all of their other bullshit calls. The league will have to report on calls that weren't reversed and that ref will be publicly shamed. Also maybe the ref that does such a thing will be penalized or fired. I'm just one guy calling for refs to be held accountable as a part of the game, not the rulers of the game.
 
blazerkor said:
Fuck that, IMO and no offense. The refs can do that shit if they want but it won't just pass by like all of their other bullshit calls. The league will have to report on calls that weren't reversed and that ref will be publicly shamed. Also maybe the ref that does such a thing will be penalized or fired. I'm just one guy calling for refs to be held accountable as a part of the game, not the rulers of the game.
Click to expand...
You bring up an interesting point. When the league puts out the L2M report, do they name the ref who made the mistake?
 
KSF-ERIC said:
You bring up an interesting point. When the league puts out the L2M report, do they name the ref who made the mistake?
Click to expand...
They don't, as far as I know, but they most definitely should. When a player misses a shot at the end of the game, that loses their team the game there is no mistaking who it was but these refs keep getting scheduled for games time and time again, almost anonymously. The league does not seem to admonish bad officiating and if they do it's behind closed doors and we see very few veteran referees getting fired for ruining the outcome of games. That is the league's prerogative but they have to hold these people accountable when coaches call for it and while I understand limitations being put on coach's challenges, they should be rewarded and not penalized for successful challenges. Right now there is only a double penalty for an unsuccessful challenge and a single penalty for a successful one.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So if I challenge one of you to a fight on Mt Tabor, I get to keep you after I kick your ass?

Cool!
Click to expand...
That is hilarious but I believe, per the concept being proposed you would just get to kick one of our asses over and over again until you didn't, couldn't or decided not to, at which point you would lose the challenge. No one is proposing slavery and I think that you as the Grand Poobah of this forum should be ashamed that you did.
 
How many times have you been watching a game and within 15 seconds you can plainly see how the review is going to go, but you have to wait 2 minutes to actually get there? One of the refs has to acknowledge the challenge, wander over to midcourt, turn a physical monitor around, put on a headset, hunch over, etc. Such a waste of time. We can bypass the horseshit of the 2 minutes quite easily.

They should just have a 4th ref who watches the game exclusively through a tv monitor. He/she manages all replays, and they have a mic into one of the refs on the court and advises them if they blew a call during dead ball. Because he's already watching the screens, game reviews happen in a fraction of the time.

But he can also make snap calls on all kinds of close decisions, without really delaying the game more than a few seconds. The monitor ref has 10 seconds after whistle to overturn a call, which is really about the same amount of time it takes to get the ball ready for inbounding. Compared to the split second refs have to judge a play while it happens, 10 seconds is an eon of time.

I'm fine with the coach's challenge, and even allowing a second challenge. But it's a clumsy workaround, where you're telling the ref the call is so bad you're willing to gamble a timeout to prove your point. The objective should be to get the right call made as close to real time as possible. You can do that, but you have to do it differently from how the NBA handles it. Get a video ref specialist.

If we can run entire schools or corporations over zoom, we surely can find a way to ref a game using video to improve both speed and accuracy.
 
Challenges really drag out the game and can kill momentum, so Im not in favor of too many challenges. One is not enough though, so I like this idea but it should have a limit of 3 or so.
 
At least one challenge a half?
With the first half challenge rolling to second half if not used.
Just a thought?
 
In the NFL coaches get two challenges per game (none can be used in the final two minutes of either half or OT) and if the coach hits on both challenges, than they get a 3rd. I don't know if a coach should be able to get unlimited challenges if they keep getting them right but it also seems like a crappy system that is in place now. Living in South Texas I had to watch the game on the Spurs feed (dear God puncture my ear drums before I have to listen to Sean Elliott call another game but that's a different topic) and SE was crowing in the 4th Q about how the Blazers used their challenge already and couldn't look at a couple of the bad calls down the stretch.
 
HailBlazers said:
....
Click to expand...

Funny! Lol.

yes and for those concerned about the flow of the game or tv scheduling conflicts? maybe it would help the nba refs association put out a better product.

Must be held accountable.

however naming refs who blow calls is not a good idea. Too many crazies out there. Someone will hunt down a ref because their team lost or something.
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
The game would become unwatchable. Drag on forever. I can see allowing two per game but not infinite.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much my opinion as well. And they can't be at the same quarter.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
At least one challenge a half?
With the first half challenge rolling to second half if not used.
Just a thought?
Click to expand...

I think the best would be one challenge per half. No rollover. I sure as hell would not want to see 4 coach's challenges in the last 3 minutes of a close game
 
I voted no because of how much delay time you could see during games.

I would rather increase it to 1 per half +1 in OT, but if you miss one then you lose the opportunity to challenge again.
 
PDXFonz said:
I voted no because of how much delay time you could see during games.

I would rather increase it to 1 per half +1 in OT, but if you miss one then you lose the opportunity to challenge again.
Click to expand...

Hate the delay but feel like they're getting faster.
 
mook said:
How many times have you been watching a game and within 15 seconds you can plainly see how the review is going to go, but you have to wait 2 minutes to actually get there? One of the refs has to acknowledge the challenge, wander over to midcourt, turn a physical monitor around, put on a headset, hunch over, etc. Such a waste of time. We can bypass the horseshit of the 2 minutes quite easily.

They should just have a 4th ref who watches the game exclusively through a tv monitor. He/she manages all replays, and they have a mic into one of the refs on the court and advises them if they blew a call during dead ball. Because he's already watching the screens, game reviews happen in a fraction of the time.

But he can also make snap calls on all kinds of close decisions, without really delaying the game more than a few seconds. The monitor ref has 10 seconds after whistle to overturn a call, which is really about the same amount of time it takes to get the ball ready for inbounding. Compared to the split second refs have to judge a play while it happens, 10 seconds is an eon of time.

I'm fine with the coach's challenge, and even allowing a second challenge. But it's a clumsy workaround, where you're telling the ref the call is so bad you're willing to gamble a timeout to prove your point. The objective should be to get the right call made as close to real time as possible. You can do that, but you have to do it differently from how the NBA handles it. Get a video ref specialist.

If we can run entire schools or corporations over zoom, we surely can find a way to ref a game using video to improve both speed and accuracy.
Click to expand...
Great points/suggestions.
 
blazerkor said:
This question is so obvious but I guess the league doesn't think so. If you catch the refs slipping you shouldn't be given the opportunity to catch the same crew slipping again?!? That's some serious bullshit! If you get your first challenge right you keep it and so on. If the refs fuck up 20 calls in the game and you catch them on all 20 so badly that they have to overturn them, shame on them, not shame on the coach that caught them.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the refs fucking up 20 times in a row is exactly why this question is not “obvious” to the NBA.
 
wizenheimer said:
I think the best would be one challenge per half. No rollover. I sure as hell would not want to see 4 coach's challenges in the last 3 minutes of a close game
Click to expand...

You do lose a time out on a failure right? So frivolous challenges would go punished.
 
wizenheimer said:
I think the best would be one challenge per half. No rollover. I sure as hell would not want to see 4 coach's challenges in the last 3 minutes of a close game
Click to expand...
I definitely would like to see a coach get every opportunity to challenge if they keep catching the refs fucking over their team. I do not care about the feel of the game or flow or whatever. I care about the game's integrity and not penalizing coaches for challenging calls that have to be bad enough for the refs that made the call to overturn them.

Let's not act like most coaches will win challenges at a rate that would even come close to resulting in your proposed scenario happening often, if ever. Most coaches in the league are right around 50% successful challenge rate (some are quite a bit higher and some a lot lower but most right at 50/50). So the idea of them winning three coin flips in a row in the last three minutes of a game after having gone the rest of the game winning all or not making any challenges, just doesn't seem like a likely enough scenario to mention when arguing against coaches getting unlimited successful challenges but losing the opportunity after any unsuccessful challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mook
  • Poll Poll
The Collins Coaching Challenge (TM)
Replies
25
Views
2K
Labinot41
Labinot41
Rastapopoulos
  • Poll Poll
Whiteside: trade or keep?
5 6 7
Replies
186
Views
14K
Boise Blazer
Boise Blazer
Te'o'sGirlFriend
  • Poll Poll
Should Te'o'sGirlFriend go away
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Further
Further
Blazer4ever
Thinking our current situation
Replies
26
Views
1K
TorturedBlazerFan
TorturedBlazerFan
Scalma
Mock Draft Challenge
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Tortimer
Tortimer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top