What's new
By:
Filters

Why can’t no-calls be challneged?

There’s no ball stoppage. I get that there is here because of out of bounds. But at least that’s the official word. It’s also more nebulous of what you’re looking at, whereas a whistle blowing has a time stamp and is less arbitrary.

Not necessarily making an argument on this.
 
infection said:
There’s no ball stoppage. I get that there is here because of out of bounds. But at least that’s the official word. It’s also more nebulous of what you’re looking at, whereas a whistle blowing has a time stamp and is less arbitrary.

Not necessarily making an argument on this.
Click to expand...
What’s a no call stoppage?
 
Well most NBA refs in fact are idiots anymore so it's not like it would matter. Personal feeling about the officiating in this era is the old farts are doing side hustles and the young bucks are like rental cops that couldn't graduate from the police academy, or if they did, it was so they could intern for the Fife family
 
ONE LOVE said:
What’s a no call stoppage?
Click to expand...
There isn’t one. If there’s a no-call and the other team has possession, how do you initiate a challenge? Same reason you can’t call a timeout when you don’t have possession. How do you challenge a no call when the ball is live?

Again I’m not saying there aren’t solutions to that. Having reviews is keeping the appearance that the ultimate goal is accuracy, and I serves that purpose by reaching a critical mass of people who can say, “see, they try to get it right! They do a lot of stuff here!”
 
Is it because the NBRA would strike if the NBA enforce the reviewable no-call rule?

Why would the NBA not want the correct calls made?

Why would he NBA kowtow to the NBRA?
 
infection said:
There isn’t one. If there’s a no-call and the other team has possession, how do you initiate a challenge? Same reason you can’t call a timeout when you don’t have possession. How do you challenge a no call when the ball is live?

Again I’m not saying there aren’t solutions to that. Having reviews is keeping the appearance that the ultimate goal is accuracy, and I serves that purpose by reaching a critical mass of people who can say, “see, they try to get it right! They do a lot of stuff here!”
Click to expand...
They should allow a "we ****ed up royally challenge". Where once play is stopped you can go back and show them they ****ed up royally and award two free throws (shot technical style) and the ref has to take a pie to the face from the wronged player. It would lighten the mood and the fans would enjoy it more than free chicken... okay maybe almost as much.
 
infection said:
There isn’t one. If there’s a no-call and the other team has possession, how do you initiate a challenge? Same reason you can’t call a timeout when you don’t have possession. How do you challenge a no call when the ball is live?

Again I’m not saying there aren’t solutions to that. Having reviews is keeping the appearance that the ultimate goal is accuracy, and I serves that purpose by reaching a critical mass of people who can say, “see, they try to get it right! They do a lot of stuff here!”
Click to expand...
But can’t you just review it once the ball come to a stop and if it’s a missed call (I.e, it’s a foul) then everything that happened after the foul is null and void?

I mean what would be the problem with that approach?
 
ONE LOVE said:
Anyone know?

I mean why can’t we challenge this no-call?

I mean it’s clearly a foul right?

Is it so the refs don’t look like idiots?


View: https://twitter.com/dana_greene/status/1599905564485910529?s=46&t=VETw-x_zh6UwraBRq68hwQ
Click to expand...

The rule is they can only challenge possession and actual whistles, essentially. They cannot challenge that a whistle should have been blown at a given play, only if the whistle was blown and they disagree with the resulting call.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
They should allow a "we ****ed up royally challenge". Where once play is stopped you can go back and show them they ****ed up royally and award two free throws (shot technical style) and the ref has to take a pie to the face from the wronged player. It would lighten the mood and the fans would enjoy it more than free chicken... okay maybe almost as much.
Click to expand...
Now why would you pull the completely innocent chickens into this hot mess.. let them be the sandwiches they were meant to be.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The rule is they can only challenge possession and actual whistles, essentially. They cannot challenge that a whistle should have been blown at a given play, only if the whistle was blown and they disagree with the resulting call.
Click to expand...
So it has to all come down to the “whistle”? That’s bull .. if you ask me.

Again I propose the challenge can be made when the ball comes to a stop. Coaches can go back to the preview possession and review the no-call. And if there was in fact a foul.. they get 2 free throws and the ball.
 
ONE LOVE said:
So it has to all come down to the “whistle”? That’s bull .. if you ask me.

Again I propose the challenge can be made when the ball comes to a stop. Coaches can go back to the preview possession and review the no-call. And if there was in fact a foul.. they get 2 free throws and the ball.
Click to expand...
I agree, or at least they have the stupid replay center in Secaucus or wherever the **** it is, and there is no reason they couldn't just check these out and make a call remotely, or at least prompt for review by the refs on site. It is getting to the point where officiating could be a tandem thing with 3 guys on the floor and 2 guys in a booth, all at the venue, and the booth guys looking for egregious missed calls and dangerous plays, and they could have their own buzzer to hit when they see one regardless of the call on the floor, and prompt a review.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I agree, or at least they have the stupid replay center in Secaucus or wherever the **** it is, and there is no reason they couldn't just check these out and make a call remotely, or at least prompt for review by the refs on site. It is getting to the point where officiating could be a tandem thing with 3 guys on the floor and 2 guys in a booth, all at the venue, and the booth guys looking for egregious missed calls and dangerous plays, and they could have their own buzzer to hit when they see one regardless of the call on the floor, and prompt a review.
Click to expand...
I guess having the review we have now is a step in the right direction.,. We should be going further than that though..
 
The Coach's Challenge as a whole has been a gigantic failure. They should get rid of it.

Even if we ignore the fact that the Challenge added even more interminable, soul-killing "We're going to the monitor" breaks, it opened a can of worms nobody needed. Focusing on a single call is completely absurd.
 
Elizah Huge said:
They should be able to be challenged at the next dead ball.
Click to expand...
Honestly... I would be satisfied if the refs just had to go to the monitor to see how wrong they were. Once a game the player gets to sit with them at the monitor and give them side eye while they watch how stupid their call was. Also their should be a pie to the face for either the player or the ref based on who was right/wrong. Might limit complaining... imagine CP whining and then the ref says "lets go to the monitor CP" and then the ref gets to throw a pie in Chris' face.

There are no losers in my pie face challenges... we only lose by not doing it.
 
Using AI and video replay assisted officiating could be a thing. But for fouls, it would have to be limited to flagrant calls or no-calls only. Otherwise it would slow the game down too much.

AI can tell with a few second delay who touched the ball last before it went out or if a player stepped on the sideline or not (and other such simple things), so no delay there.

Booth would review potential and called flagrants every time. AI cannot make judgement calls reliably on these types of things yet.

Challenges would be for other fouls only.

Wouldnt limit non-flagrant non-calls though.
 
ONE LOVE said:
I guess having the review we have now is a step in the right direction.,. We should be going further than that though..
Click to expand...
I honestly think we are not that far off from being able to have a computer AI officiate the games. Have 200 cameras from multiple angles and teach it to identify fouls based on contact and position, velocity, force, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top