Stern wants Instant Replay

[Minstrel]

Calling it by the book, for every foul, will kill the game.

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.

 

[Tince]

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.

Players would adjust to the calls, I only think it would take a season or two at the max.

 

[Iwatas]

I think the role of the referee should be changed. I think there should be a refs seated by the court or under the basket on each side whose role is to call plays like three seconds, illegal defense, whether or not a shot counted as a three, etc. It would leave the three refs on the floor freer to call the rest of the game. Also, I love the use of instant replay. I think you use it like the NFL. Let the coach decide when he wants his call. If it's a bad call, it gets reversed. If it's a good call, you lose a time out. Finally, flopping needs to either become a personal or technical foul. It's gotten completely out of hand, to the point if the defender doesn't fall down, it's never a charge.

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

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Players would adjust to the calls, I only think it would take a season or two at the max.

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.

 

[Tince]

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.

 

[rocketeer]

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.

 

[Minstrel]

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.

 

[Tince]

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.

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.

 

[Tince]

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.

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.

 

[Minstrel]

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.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

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.

If they call the game by the books, it will be like they were playing in a store full of faberge eggs.