The NBA has formally revised its instant replay rules. In particular, referees can no longer initiate a replay review of out-of-bounds violations in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter or any overtime period. The only way to review out-of-bounds violations is thru the Coach's Challenge. NBA fans went their way to discuss if these changes are good or not. In our opinion, the league finally got it right and here are the three reasons why.
NBA Instant Replay Done Right
1. Last two minutes went on forever, turning off new viewers
As the NBA noted in their press release, the reason behind the revision was to “improve game flow.” The officials who decided on this matter probably heard Jeff Van Gundy's tirades on how the last two minutes of the game went on forever. For him, this didn't bode well for the game as it turned off viewers — especially those watching for the first time. As with any sports leagues, one of the main goals is to attract and retain viewership.
Van Gundy understands that one of the assets of basketball as a piece of entertainment is not just how easy it is to grasp the rules and objectives, but also its pace. Basketball is a very fast sport which makes it enjoyable to watch. As such, seeing the game come to a grinding halt is a rather odd occurrence, especially in the last two minutes of a very close game. Containing the excitement is good. But suppressing it for an unreasonable time eventually kills it off. This is what happens when literally every play under the two-minute mark is reviewed. At the end of the day, basketball is a sport meant to entertain. Die-hard fans probably enjoy seeing how these replay reviews develop. But NBA isn't just being watched by old-timers.
2. NBA referees lost their autonomy
There's nothing more hilarious or irritating (depending on which side you're on) than seeing Patrick Beverley twirling his index finger in the air over and over, signifying that he wants a replay review. On the other end of the spectrum, there's nothing more infuriating than seeing referees almost seem to run to the announcer's table to discuss what looks like an easy call to make. The actions of both sides are understandable. As a player, you want everything to go your way. Your goal is to win by any means necessary. Referees, for their part, want to be sure that they made the right call.
There's a tendency for these elements to clash. The result is that referees usually accede to the players' wishes by going to the announcer's desk to review the play of concern. This pretty much took away the referee's independence from any outside influence — one of the basic tenets of their job. Players understandably try to develop good relations with the referees. Some of them actually try to influence the referee's headspace by pointing out specific tendencies of several players. They are free to do and say whatever they want. But a good referee should ignore all these antics by players and coaches.
As such, the revision pretty much gives the referees their autonomy back. If the players want a play to be reviewed, then the only way to do it is through the rules — like the way it should be. Gone are the days when Beverley would endlessly twirl his index finger to get a free review and sometimes, even a free timeout. He could still do it. But for his wishes to be granted, it has to be thru the Coach's Challenge which is ultimately the discretion of the head coach.
3. All calls “equal”
The fact of the matter is this: NBA referees are human beings and therefore susceptible to errors. The desire for perfection is understandable. But this is simply an impossible task. This means that there's a good chance that they're going to miss several calls for the entire game and not just in the final two minutes of it. The old rule where referees could review basically an unlimited number of plays (as long as it's under the two-minute mark) takes away the principle that every possession and every point counts. Having infinite credits to review plays under the two-minute mark places too much importance on it, which, sort of diminishes the value of other calls outside of it.
What about those calls that were missed in the first, second, and third quarters? Shouldn't these quarters and respective calls be treated equally? Teams don't win by outscoring their foes only in the fourth quarter alone. They get the victory by taking it one possession and one quarter at a time. It would be foolish to say that a team that lost by two points could've won if the referees made the right call in the final two minutes. What about the blatantly missed call in the first quarter that could've been an and-one or maybe even a four-point play?
The revision tries its best to reinforce the essence of the adage that every point and every possession counts. If you want a review, then it'll cost you a coaching challenge. If it fails, then you lose a timeout that could've been used to draw up a game-winning play. This new revision isn't perfect yet. It applies only to the final two minutes of each quarter and overtime periods. But setting a quota is better than allowing players and coaches to practically do whatever they want.
Follow Us
Subscribe