 |
APBRmetrics
The statistical revolution will not be televised.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Roland_Beech
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
|
 Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:10 am Post subject: instant replay? |
 |
|
has the NBA ever considered an instant replay system even in the lowest rules committee meeting? (other than of course the "did he get the shot off before the end of the quarter" thing they do now)
with all the griping about calls it would be pretty easy to do an NFL-esque setup where a team gets 1 challenge a half or something. Challenge and the call stays and you lose a timeout...challenge and it's overturned and you keep the challenge.
just a thought... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:22 am Post subject: Re: instant replay? |
|
|
| Roland_Beech wrote: | has the NBA ever considered an instant replay system even in the lowest rules committee meeting? (other than of course the "did he get the shot off before the end of the quarter" thing they do now)
with all the griping about calls it would be pretty easy to do an NFL-esque setup where a team gets 1 challenge a half or something. Challenge and the call stays and you lose a timeout...challenge and it's overturned and you keep the challenge.
just a thought... |
I don't think you can overrule penalties in football. I doubt that the NBA would want to put in an instant replay rule to overturn foul calls in basketball. Especially since hoops is so much more free flowing...
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 864
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Personally, I don't like using instant replay for officiating, even the NFL system. Bad bounces, bad calls, bad plays are all part of the games. Fans and teams should Just live with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KnickerBlogger
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The other issue is that most calls in the NBA are "judgement" calls. In the NFL you can't review a holding call or a pass interference call, because that's up to the referees to judge what is & isn't holding. However you can review whether the second foot was inbounds, where the ball should be spotted, if a knee was down before the ball was loose, etc.
I just don't see the same clear cut yes/no that the NBA can institute, with the exception of did player A hit player B on the arm while he was shooting or was his foot inside the circle on a charge. There is a lot of grey area in the NBA concerning body contact, moving/stationary, etc.
_________________
KnickerBlogger.Net - now indispensable! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| that's true, but you can ask the refs to look at it again to "re-judge" it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrontRange
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you are going to go down this route. . .how about letting the players make the calls but have a observer (with a television monitor) who rules on whether the call was right (thumbs up thumbs down) . . .get overturned twice and your out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3564
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FrontRange wrote: | | If you are going to go down this route. . .how about letting the players make the calls but have a observer (with a television monitor) who rules on whether the call was right (thumbs up thumbs down) . . .get overturned twice and your out. |
I've always liked this idea. But let players have rankings that supplant the "star treatment" and homecourt calls of the present. The Observer would do his thing after the game, decide which player was right, and give him a credit toward his ranking. Player with higher ranking gets his way.
If you have a negative credit ranking, from making mostly wrong calls, you get overruled most of the time. If you use your superior ranking to get your way, but you're wrong, that's a double no-no. Do this in preseason games (or in a minor league) first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | | FrontRange wrote: | | If you are going to go down this route. . .how about letting the players make the calls but have a observer (with a television monitor) who rules on whether the call was right (thumbs up thumbs down) . . .get overturned twice and your out. |
I've always liked this idea. But let players have rankings that supplant the "star treatment" and homecourt calls of the present. The Observer would do his thing after the game, decide which player was right, and give him a credit toward his ranking. Player with higher ranking gets his way.
If you have a negative credit ranking, from making mostly wrong calls, you get overruled most of the time. If you use your superior ranking to get your way, but you're wrong, that's a double no-no. Do this in preseason games (or in a minor league) first. |
Ultimate frisbee has players call their own fouls with a way for people to contest the calls. But, in part because they call their own fouls, they aren't getting respect as a sport (despite its basic nature being outstanding as a sport). The sport's higher-ups have pretty much accepted that the only way the sport will be in the Olympics is to accept referees, despite it being played in enough countries without refs.
Here is another reason why not to have your own foul calls in hoops. If a guy calls a blocking foul, the defender can call a charging foul simultaneously. If a guy calls a handcheck in a critical situation, he doesn't care what his ranking is going to be in some later review as long as it helps him win that game. Having sideline observers doesn't help either because there are ways to game that system in ways that aren't basketball -- if the other guys are on a fast break, just call foul to stop it. Even if that gets overturned, they now have to inbound and their break goes away. You can throw in even more rules to handle these situations, but is that what we want -- even more rules? If you want sideline observers at all, why not just use refs?
In general, there is a huge potential for bias with players calling their own fouls. And biased foul calling is a much greater problem than the neutral errors of referees (see Basketball on Paper Chp 12 for numbers). There is no way that removing refs for player calls can work better in the NBA. Not a chance.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3564
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HoopStudies wrote: |
.. biased foul calling is a much greater problem than the neutral errors of referees ... |
Is referee error really neutral? Why do some franchises regularly win the majority of their close games, at the expense of others?
The charge/blocking dispute you referred to is just the kind of play-stopping situation that both players are likely better able to judge than are the refs. If the ranking player gets his way and is wrong, the penalty applied to his ranking can outweigh what benefit his team gains from one possession.
Play stoppage isn't a good thing, you're right; and that's what I'd like to see less of, too. Again, losing a break opportunity is worth some fraction of a point, and having a player lose rank over it might be worth more, down the road.
There may be appropriate weights to apply to mis-calls in critical situations. As the game situation gets more ultra-critical, both coaches go with lineups of reputable players. Whiners and cheap-call artists go to the bench. That's not bad, is it?
I guess there's no real need to eliminate the ref. He can be there to intervene in tough situations. Or a player may defer to the ref, for example, if he just doesn't know whether his foot was on the line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moneyp
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just have the player who calls the foul shoot from the top of the key when there's a dispute. This is how we handle it on the playground. The ball doesn't lie. :)
I'm interested in how the Ultimate Frisbee method of officiating works now. What's the challenge system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrontRange
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dean,
I played 20 years of Ultimate . . . but I was really being a little tounge-in-cheek ('cause the replay idea would slow the game down waaaaayyy tooooo much).
Still, if you had harsh enough penalties for wrong calls (i.e. you call a foul to stop the fast break, but then you sit the rest of the quarter or game) . . .I think you could put in a system for that would create disincentives for "gaming" the system.
Personally, I always thought the best system for Ultimate was "passive" observers - i.e. they couldn't control the flow of the game but could make ruling on plays once the players had made a call. But, in reality, Dean is correct, bcs the more valuable the stakes (and NBA players make alot of money), the more difficult to let players call their own fouls.
On the other hand, I do think they should do system like that for All-star weekend. Get rid of the all-star game and instead let the fans vote for 8 team captains who pick 6 players each and run a pick-up style tournement . .games to 21, double elmination . .winning team gets $1 million. Then we would get to see something approaching real plays @ the All-Star game plus guys could play with their friends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoopStudies
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 705
Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | | HoopStudies wrote: |
.. biased foul calling is a much greater problem than the neutral errors of referees ... |
Is referee error really neutral? Why do some franchises regularly win the majority of their close games, at the expense of others?
|
I guess I've never really found this to be true... It would take a lot of evidence to justify that there is any sort of conspiracy. Home teams don't seem to win close games more than they should based on my quick looks. It's also hard to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to allow (fillintheblank) to win. I actually have no idea who they would want to win. Wouldn't they have already made sure that New York had a recent title if there was a conspiracy?
The goal of refs is neutrality. The goal of players is not, even if you put in some sort of system to try to make them unbiased. They will always be looking for an advantage. So at least you can count on the intent of refs to be neutral. In a high intensity game, which is the NBA or any top level sport, the players can be counted on to be very biased.
In thinking about it a bit, I also think that the system you're suggesting would relegate more games to the intensity of preseason, where ref points get consideration over points on the scoreboard. Do we really need more preseason-like games?
Enough from me on this subject. This can't be serious consideration.
_________________
Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
The postings are my own & don't necess represent positions, strategies or opinions of employers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FrontRange wrote: | I played 20 years of Ultimate . . .
|
I've got discs and Ultimate shirts which are not only old enough to vote, they're old enough to run for Congress. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2
| FrontRange wrote: | But, in reality, Dean is correct, bcs the more valuable the stakes (and NBA players make alot of money), the more difficult to let players call their own fouls.
|
Yes, Ultimate's Spirit of the Game philosophy would not work in the NBA. Which is a reason why Ultimate should *not* seek to join the Olympics, or become a professional sport, etc. And concomitantly, the NBA self-refereeing ideas, though intriguing, are probably not workable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3564
Location: Hendersonville, NC
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose the theoretical job of the refs is to steer towards fairness, but the individual ref is looking for job security. It all comes down to what is considered "doing the job right".
Most conspiracy theories spring from the notion that there are more fans in certain markets, and these fans will lose interest if "their" team isn't winning. The number of people watching the games and buying the merchandise has much to do with league revenue -- which pays the refs' salaries.
Another way to reduce the potential influence of the refs would be to employ technology on/in the court. It should be a simple matter to determine electronically that a player is standing out of bounds when he is stripping the ball from someone. Just a few strands of some metallic material in the soles of the shoes, and sensors in the floor, would reveal whether a guy is behind the arc when he shoots, in the lane too soon or too long, etc.
Similarly, the robot ref can determine the exact location of where the basketball hits the floor. Sensors in wristbands could measure impact to a shooter's arm when he's getting hacked. Flopping would serve no purpose.
I know all this guesswork and acting are "part of the game". But are they the parts that we enjoy? Do we go to games so that we can argue afterwards about who got the most bad calls?
When I'm watching an intense game, I pray the outcome won't be based on a referee error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike G wrote: | Sensors in wristbands could measure impact to a shooter's arm when he's getting hacked. Flopping would serve no purpose.
|
I'll indulge this and say that those sensors would not be very helpful. The "force", measured by Newton's 2nd law as mass x acceleration (in "mass x distance / time^2"), could be measured. However, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the amount of force needed to "impact" the movement of Shaq's arm would be appreciably greater than that needed to "impact" the movement of Ndubi Ebi's arm. Also, I suppose you could measure the movement of the arm in question, but then it wouldn't be flopper-proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
