So. Is the NBA better with instant replay?

[Clifton]

(Full disclosure: Wizards fan since 2000, Pierce fan since 2002. I think this conversation will be more interesting if we discuss the question, though; not my bias)

I have always thought pro sports would be better without instant replay, and that sometimes, the "wrong call" is better than the "right call." As a basketball ref myself, there are fouls I let go, and there are fouls I call that are dubious, according to the situation (factors like advantage, intent, rhythm of the game, etc).

Human officials are a natural part of sports. To me, that game should have gone into OT. Everything about the moment says that was a valid shot and should have counted. Everyone in the building thought it was good.

The sense that everyone watching that game had was not, "Good - the correct call was made," but rather, "Wow - the Hawks sure caught a break."

Does instant replay make the game better? Discuss.

[LAZERUSS]

(Full disclosure: Wizards fan since 2000, Pierce fan since 2002. I think this conversation will be more interesting if we discuss the question, though; not my bias)

I have always thought pro sports would be better without instant replay, and that sometimes, the "wrong call" is better than the "right call." As a basketball ref myself, there are fouls I let go, and there are fouls I call that are dubious, according to the situation (factors like advantage, intent, rhythm of the game, etc).

Human officials are a natural part of sports. To me, that game should have gone into OT. Everything about the moment says that was a valid shot and should have counted. Everyone in the building thought it was good.

The sense that everyone watching that game had was not, "Good - the correct call was made," but rather, "Wow - the Hawks sure caught a break."

Does instant replay make the game better? Discuss.

I don't like instant replay in any of the major sports, but the reality is, I would rather get it right, than lose (or even win) a game or series because of a blown call.

It is a necessary evil.

[jayfan]

(Full disclosure: Wizards fan since 2000, Pierce fan since 2002. I think this conversation will be more interesting if we discuss the question, though; not my bias)

I have always thought pro sports would be better without instant replay, and that sometimes, the "wrong call" is better than the "right call." As a basketball ref myself, there are fouls I let go, and there are fouls I call that are dubious, according to the situation (factors like advantage, intent, rhythm of the game, etc).

Human officials are a natural part of sports. To me, that game should have gone into OT. Everything about the moment says that was a valid shot and should have counted. Everyone in the building thought it was good.

The sense that everyone watching that game had was not, "Good - the correct call was made," but rather, "Wow - the Hawks sure caught a break."

Does instant replay make the game better? Discuss.

Always good when the correct call gets made. I feel for Wiz fans, but at the end of the day, an error was corrected. Replay is a good thing.

.

[Dave3]

I have always thought pro sports would be better without instant replay, and that sometimes, the "wrong call" is better than the "right call."
Wholeheartedly disagree. To me there's no way or rationalization that would make wrong preferable to right, regardless of the situation.

Obviously I understand it would be hard to be on the short end of that stick, but there's no point in rules if they can't be enforced as accurately as possible.

[Rake2204]

I would have really liked to see the Wizards pull that game out but when the opportunity to get things right presents itself on such a clear cut and focal game-changing situation, I fully support being able to get it right.

As you may recall, it was a pair of buzzer-beaters that officials got wrong in the early 2000's that precipitated replay's inclusion. For one, Reggie Miller's triple was after the buzzer against New Jersey in 2002 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s39MSwM7lKc#t=1m58s). Sure, it was still a great moment for non-Nets fans, but it was undeniably wrong.

On the other side was Baron Davis and the Hornets, who should have won Game 3 of their first round best-of-five on his miraculous buzzer-beater against Orlando: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyoTKbhiBVA. With no replay, the officials got it wrong and subsequently, a wonderful moment was erased from history (Charlotte still won).

[L.Kizzle]

How many famous buzzerbeaters would get called back if they had replays?

Hondo of the glass?
Gar Heard turnaaround ... it's good?
Ralph Sampson?
Trent Tucker?
Rex Chapman?
Alan Houston?
Vashon Leonard?
I recall a Baron Davis playoff buzzer beater from 2002 where there were no replays and should have actually counted, but they took it away.
Derek Fisher?
Paul Pierce?

[AintNoSunshine]

Yes because incorrect calls can be reversed and I would hate to be on the wrong end of an incorrect call. Now thats not to say there are not things they. Can tweek to made the replay rules better.

[navy]

The only problem with instant replay is how slow they are with obvious calls.

Other than that? Fvck human nature and entertainment. I want the correct calls made. If Pierce was late then he was late.

[RidonKs]

I would have really liked to see the Wizards pull that game out but when the opportunity to get things right presents itself on such a clear cut and focal game-changing situation, I fully support being able to get it right.

As you may recall, it was a pair of buzzer-beaters that officials got wrong in the early 2000's that precipitated replay's inclusion. For one, Reggie Miller's triple was after the buzzer against New Jersey in 2002 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s39MSwM7lKc#t=1m58s). Sure, it was still a great moment for non-Nets fans, but it was undeniably wrong.

On the other side was Baron Davis and the Hornets, who should have won Game 3 of their first round best-of-five on his miraculous buzzer-beater against Orlando: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyoTKbhiBVA. With no replay, the officials got it wrong and subsequently, a wonderful moment was erased from history (Charlotte still won).
good post. it's one thing to tack on three points that were technically slightly after the horn. he made the shot after all, which is the point the op is making. but it's an entirely different thing to disallow points that clearly would have counted upon review. that really pisses people off.

a big factor in this is that basketball broadcasts are already bound to use instant replay themselves. therefore the world's fans are already being exposed to the review. to deprive the officials of that information would be a terrific way to ruin the nba's credibility, which is already its most fragile commodity.

as a fan of basketball and no particular team, i agree with you that we're better off trusting to human judgment. it makes for a more intimate experience, especially because there are less breaks and therefore less commercials. but that's another reason the nba will keep instant replay. as long as they think it's justifiable, it's a way to keep viewers tuned in for longer, which is ultimately the bottom line of the enterprise. as far as i know people aren't turning the game off because of review.

most of the nba's viewers aren't fans of basketball however. they are fans of teams and players who they root for like extensions of themselves. it isn't about athletic appreciation so much as the adrenaline of competition, which would seem strange since the fan is completely removed from the competition itself. yet we've all felt it. so when something comes to bear on our heroes performance that is outside their control, like officiating, we get angry and cry fraud. that tarnishes the reputation of the league. bad business decision.



what i do think will happen is that the nba will impose some modest restrictions on it. referees are definitely having a hard time figuring out when it's appropriate to go to review. they're doing an adequate job, but late in games, they micromanage calls that aren't so difficult to make. to some extent, this is eroding their instincts.

there are a few solutions to this. one is the football technique. give each coach three flags or cards or whatever. when and how to use those vetoes and call for a review becomes a game in itself. i see no reason it wouldn't work in the nba.

or just simple time restrictions. only give referees 30 seconds. that means they watch each angle once, and if they can't decide, they stick with their gut.

the solution that might make the most sense but is almost impossible because of the uneasy feeling it'll leave with people is to send the decision upstairs. to new jersey or wherever they have that room they keep showing. quick calls by a referee "in the box" or however you want to call it.



but this is all to say it isn't going anywhere any time soon.

[jayfan]

How many famous buzzerbeaters would get called back if they had replays?

Hondo of the glass?
Gar Heard turnaaround ... it's good?
Ralph Sampson?
Trent Tucker?
Rex Chapman?
Alan Houston?
Vashon Leonard?
I recall a Baron Davis playoff buzzer beater from 2002 where there were no replays and should have actually counted, but they took it away.
Derek Fisher?
Paul Pierce?

Kenny Anderson (college v. msu, ncaa tourney)


.

[brantonli]

I'm surprised at all these responses. Why would you want to take instant replay out? Because it would've extended the series. WTF? You always want the right call, period, regardless of how exciting or otherwise the call would've been. We already let a tons of other calls go (obviously nobody is calling for instant replays on all foul either), and I can't believe some people want the most important call of them all, that on a game winner, to be without instant replay.

[barito]

As a Wiz fan I would say I wish replays didnt exist.Last night was such a beautiful thing to record on camera, and experience with my 10 month son at Verizon Center only to have it taken back. On the other hand my non bias side thinks its a great thing to have. Regardless of emotions, the right call should always be made. There is nothing worse then having a blown call, it also helps put pressure on the refs to make the right decision.

[inclinerator]

only if it is instant and doesnt take fking 15 minutes

[RidonKs]

I'm surprised at all these responses. Why would you want to take instant replay out? Because it would've extended the series. WTF? You always want the right call, period, regardless of how exciting or otherwise the call would've been. We already let a tons of other calls go (obviously nobody is calling for instant replays on all foul either), and I can't believe some people want the most important call of them all, that on a game winner, to be without instant replay.
can you appreciate why people who don't really care who wins and just want to see good basketball would be more likely to prefer a few missed calls over the constant interruptions in the last two minutes we currently get to watch? hell it adds to the drama if by sheer luck of a bad call a player gets knocked out. keeps everybody else on their toes.

[jayfan]

can you appreciate why people who don't really care who wins and just want to see good basketball would be more likely to prefer a few missed calls over the constant interruptions in the last two minutes we currently get to watch? hell it adds to the drama if by sheer luck of a bad call a player gets knocked out. keeps everybody else on their toes.

Not really, no.




.

[brantonli]

can you appreciate why people who don't really care who wins and just want to see good basketball would be more likely to prefer a few missed calls over the constant interruptions in the last two minutes we currently get to watch? hell it adds to the drama if by sheer luck of a bad call a player gets knocked out. keeps everybody else on their toes.

Well that will be like me watching football (soccer), not really understanding the offsides rule, and being annoyed that the action was stopped. Do I like the interruption, of course not, nobody does, but the rule is there for a reason. For this thread, the calls go both ways. If the refs hadn't called the foul for Otto Porter at 7.8s left, the Wizards would never have even gotten to the Pierce shot. Would you rather that foul not be called, and hence no interruption?

[dreamwarrior]

I dont like having IR for the final 2 minutes in any sport that relies on timekeeping. By the end of the game the time clock is going to be off by 1-5 seconds, sometimes even more all due to human and computer error. I really dislike the trent tucker .3s rule for that reason. I dont think anyone has won a game on a pass and tip in. Just let the players play.

[atljonesbro]

Without replay the Hawks could potentially be going to game seven and a shot that didn't count. I appreciate it a lot. I never want to see a team get cheated out of a win like the Hawks might have.

[Taller than CP3]

As a basketball ref myself

:biggums:

[Rockets(T-mac)]

LOL. The rules of the game should be enforced as best as possible, especially the ones that aren't subjective. Fouls are a subjective call, and I agree they shouldn't be reviewable, but out-of-bounds, shot/game clock stuff is either good or no good, no middle ground. If you lose because of a blown call on something non-subjective that's just the worst feeling, hell even if I was a neutral observer I wouldn't like it. It just taints the win.

[Clifton]

I don't like instant replay in any of the major sports, but the reality is, I would rather get it right, than lose (or even win) a game or series because of a blown call.

It is a necessary evil.
This is a legitimate point. It prevents me from ever being too loud about my position. It's hard to argue for incorrect calls deciding games.

Obviously, now that the technology exists, it can never be done away with, so my post is pointless.

But we aren't better off for having the technology, IMO.

Some good posts here. I will respond more fully when I have time.

[comerb]

can you appreciate why people who don't really care who wins and just want to see good basketball would be more likely to prefer a few missed calls over the constant interruptions in the last two minutes we currently get to watch? hell it adds to the drama if by sheer luck of a bad call a player gets knocked out. keeps everybody else on their toes.


No.

[oarabbus]

I dont like having IR for the final 2 minutes in any sport that relies on timekeeping. By the end of the game the time clock is going to be off by 1-5 seconds, sometimes even more all due to human and computer error. I really dislike the trent tucker .3s rule for that reason. I dont think anyone has won a game on a pass and tip in. Just let the players play.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPneaiwLg0k

I'm literally dumbfounded at all these people saying they wish there wasn't instant replay

[Overdrive]

What I don't get is:

Player A makes tries a lay up within' the last 2 mins, player B fouls him, player A falls down and they review it. On the replay you can see the ball hit the board and was blocked afterwards. So it should be a 3 points play, but they won't count it, because they can only review the foul call. Same when they call foul and can't take it back, but only look who fouled and how "strong".

[dreamwarrior]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPneaiwLg0k

I'm literally dumbfounded at all these people saying they wish there wasn't instant replay
so is that the only tip in game winner? only 1 out of the 65000 games played since the rule

[ILLsmak]

The only problem with instant replay is how slow they are with obvious calls.

Other than that? Fvck human nature and entertainment. I want the correct calls made. If Pierce was late then he was late.

Nah the only bad thing about instant replay is... well multiple things.

One would be that they can look at an instant replay and STILL GET THE SHIT WRONG. They can see the truth right in front of their eyes and ignore it.

The other would be all of the times when replay is needed and it can't be used.

The refs shouldn't need to stop to review a play. The review should be going on in a booth somewhere with experts. You know they have people who can look at someone's face on a grainy ass gas station surveillance camera and make a positive ID. They also have progs that can help.

Obviously, we don't want the game to stop always, but they could be reviewing stuff during the timeouts. They could also have a kind of suspect signal where the people in the booth were like holdup now...

shit like out of bounds, stepping out of bounds, goal tending... should always be reviewed/correct. They COULD review fouls, too, but I doubt they ever would. I would rather have the super suspect calls reviewed always.

It's just a black stain on the NBA when they go to the replay and still **** up the call. "WE didn't have that angle." ****off.

-Smak