[Haynes] NBA’s Competition Committee is in serious discussions on awarding teams a second and final challenge if first challenge is ruled successful beginning with the 2023-24 season, league sources tell @NBAonTNT, @BleacherReport.
NBA’s Competition Committee is in serious discussions on awarding teams a second and final challenge if first challenge is ruled successful beginning with the 2023-24 season, league sources tell @NBAonTNT, @BleacherReport.
— Chris Haynes (@ChrisBHaynes) May 26, 2023
by Wonderful-Balance711
50 Comments
I bet this gets challenged.
Earpiece to replay center in each refs ear.
That’s the only way to get it right ~95% of the time.
They should have “unlimited” challenges, but every wrong challenge after the first is a tech on the coach. High stakes.
This still doesn’t fix the problem entirely, teams will still wait to the end of the game to use it.
Give each team 2 challenges. 1 for the the first 45 mins, and one that can only be used with 3 mins left to play (matching up with when teams lose their extra time outs). The first challenge works the same way it currently does, the 2nd one doesn’t cost a time out if you lose your challenge
So needed. You never want the game to be slowed down, but in such a discretionary reffing sport, you should be allowed more than one challenge if you use it smartly.
It should’ve always been like this. Teams shouldn’t be punished to lose their challenge just because the ref couldn’t do their job
There’s honestly zero reason why this isn’t already a thing. A 2nd challenge would even give the league another stoppage for a commercial break!
Great. More stoppages. Because if there’s something I hate about NBA basketball is fast-paced game.
Is the NBA the only league where you lose your challenge even if it’s successful? Always felt silly to me
Great, more ways to stretch out the last minute of a game
I think it should be this, or at least be able to have one to use in the first half.
Right now you’re punished for making a correct challenge in the first half, if it’s not to keep a guy out of foul trouble
They need Secaucus to be the ones doing this review. The on the floor refs are too emotional.
It also takes awaythose iffy challenges, coaches will think twice about using even one.
PLEASE DO SO
Why not just keep allowing challenges until you get one wrong. Should never penalize being correct
Why the hell are they not considering putting a clock on replay reviews.
This is the biggest problem.
The reviews are taking WAY TOO LONG
In cricket, you can keep using your challenge till it is deemed unsuccessful…
How about no challenges and just a skybox ref for the tough borderline calls. Just making the game longer.
How about being able to challenge no-calls? Those can effect the games even more but right now there’s no ability to do so. You just hope it happens in the last 2 minutes so the L2M report vindicates you on the moral victory side.
All timeouts should be able to be used as challenges. If you win a challenge, you keep your timeout. Challenges can be used for no-calls. Plays should be reviewed by Secaucus with only the communication of the result to be done by the refs on the floor. Done.
Stop making it cost a timeout. Just give each team a challenge and let them use it freely.
I mean. Why stop it at all, if the challenge is successfully let them keep it until it’s not. Maybe refs should make the right call.
This always should have been the case. You get a max of two challenges which doesn’t bog down the game, but if you challenge a 50/50 call and lose you get penalized and don’t get another one.
This is the most fair system
I know this would make the game longer, but I kind of want the reviews in the last 2 minutes to make a comeback. I’m willing to sacrifice a longer end to the games if it means the right call is made.
I think a team that challenges successfully should not only get the challenge back, they should get another timeout for their troubles
One per half. If you win both, you get a third, like the NFL used to do. That was the best.
Should be 2 minimum, indefinite if winning.
Let teams challenge until they get one wrong.
If the refs are so bad that a coach can challenge 3,4, or 5 calls and get them all right, he should be able to.
That being said, limit review times to 90 seconds. If nothing can be found in that time, the challenge is inconclusive and therefore unsuccessful.
Good
All of this would be moot if they just use a camera system.
*celebratory helicopter fingers*
Just what we need, more stoppages for commercial breaks and even less flow to the game.
1. Give teams an additional challenge each time they successfully overturn the call
2. Have a team do the review remotely with a strict time limit (~2 minutes or less). If its too close to overturn with 2 minutes of slow-mo replays, the on-court call should stand anyways
I think this on top of capping the number of challenges in the final two minutes of a game at 1 per team would be the ideal situation.
Having 4 challenges and reviews in the final two minutes of a close game would completely ruin the experience, but coaches also shouldn’t be punished for challenging a bad call in the second quarter.
This helps for sure but they still won’t use it till the fourth quarter. Just give them multiple challenges.
This is obviously a no-brainer. I don’t understand why they didn’t do this from the beginning. Why would they think it would be OK to charge a team with a challenge if they were right?
Easiest solution: One challenge, you only lose the challenge if it’s unsuccessful.
How about attacking the problem at its source. Are the refs’ performances reviewed with any meaningful scrutiny after the game? I would assume some review exists, but it doesn’t seem to be working.
Scott Foster in shambles rn.
Jk, until you have unlimited challenges so long as you win, he will just keep doing it.
They should have unlimited challenges if successful.
The guys you hired to make correct determinations literally got it wrong.
Currently there are only two effective uses of the challenge.
1. To potentially overturn a call late in the 4th quarter, which of course requires coaches to hold it until the final few possessions.
2. To save a foul on a key player early or in the middle of the game. This can also be double edged, assigning a foul to a key opposing player.
Any other use of the challenge is a waste since teams score 120 a night in the NBA. It’s basically meaningless to save 2-3 points early.
but what happens if the second challenge is successful?
it’s better than what we have now but you should have unlimited challenges until you’re wrong
Seems like someone in the league office is actually looking at feedback
I’m all for this
If the first challenge is unsuccessful but the replay guys in Secaucus disagree, then you should keep your second challenge.
Keep going until you get it wrong, like tennis
So much bad reffing, I feel like we’ll never get to see live play.
I don’t see any good reason that every single timeout can’t initiate a challenge. Just do it so that you only get refunded a timeout like once. Then from there you can keep calling them to challenge, but even if you win you don’t keep it.
What is with the weirdos in here begging for more commercials
Only if they do it as they do it in Football using VAR. Fast reviews, otherwise this game is already a bore, imagine yet another reason to go to a 5 min. commercial