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 sure as hell would not want to see 4 clearly wrong calls against the same team 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.
I suspect that the refs fucking up 20 times in a row is exactly why this question is not “obvious” to the NBA.
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 missed my point. It doesn't matter to me whether the challenges are upheld or not. I would just hate to see 4 more 1-3 minute delays in the last 3 minutes than there already are with the time-outs
If the coaches are winning the challenges in your scenario then whatever flow lost or delays caused are worth it to maintain the integrity of the game. If the coaches are losing them then they will check themselves because they are losing critical timeouts at the end of a game. Not sure your scenario would last either way. Sorry but the integrity of quality refereeing far exceeds the importance of negating a few 1-3 minute delays at the end of a game.
ok...I see what your opinion is. As I said, I just don't agree. Further, while you are claiming it's a principle you're defending, I think that's a red herring the logical extension of your argument is that teams should be able challenge every call that goes against them for the sake of "integrity of quality refereeing". But if you set any limit, whether it's 1 challenge, or 2 challenges, or 5 challenges, or challenges until you get one wrong, it's not a principle any more, it's just a matter of degree. So I'm setting the matter of degree at 1 challenge per half
But the limit is set my number of timeouts. They can only max out at 5 unless their are winning them and if they are winning 5 challenge a half? The integrity is absolutely suspect snd refereeing needs improvements. So to follow your thought extension, How many coaches do you really think are going to challenge every call.. especially when the average is they will lose every other one snd run out of timeouts? I think the red herring is assuming a coach is going to be so ridiculous to challenge every play. I see it as a non issue. If a coach is over challenging, one of two things happens. They lose their timeouts or they expose shoddy officiating. I see neither as a negative to the game. But like you noted(not word for word), this is just one idiots opinion over here.
I just think one challenge a half is enough. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with carrying a 1st half challenge to the 2nd half if the 1st half challenge is successful. I just don't want to see a bunch of delays
I hear ya. Especially on those 730 weeknight starts! i don't really think it would last all that long though, unless coaches keep winning the challenges and if that were to happen, i maintain its a much bigger issue needing a resolution than the time lost during the game. Fix the officiating and the time lost is negated. If a coach wants to call challenges and keep losing them, i think they will also lose thier job, so in that respect, again, i dont think it would last that long. A couple seasons of this before it is rectified, or a need for rectification is exposed? Another thought is get the refs vision out of calls that can be answered by technology, like tennis. All out of bounds sidelines calls etc, shouldnt need a review. There should be laser scopes on all of the lines/ angles of the court to provide an immediate answer. The only things refs should be blowing their whistles on are fouls, i think(without really thinking about it,lol). If stadiums integrated that, then there would be less calls refs are responsible for, hopefully minimizing some challenges? Just a thought.
The challenge is the equivalent of the Coach shooting his free throw... As I am not a fan of instant replay in any sport, in any capacity, so I have zero desire to watch the coach shoot. Even if he was known as "Mr. Big Shot". Decades ago, (1983??) I watched Washington beat the 49ers in a NFC Championship game. There was a phantom pass interference call on Ronnie Lott that iced the game for Washington. I still have not forgotten that...(lost $$$...never bet on sports again).... There was no correction then, and there shouldn't be now. Errors are a part of sport. Deal with them.
Could you imagine how unwatchable NBA basketball would be if they stopped a game 4 times for breaks in the last 3 minutes. It's good that's never happened and we have no delays at the end of games. I mean the last 3 minute of a game only takes about 3 minutes, right? We don't have a bunch of advertisements or worthless shit crammed into that time for 5-10 or more minutes.
