How to improve NBA reffing

[JCSunsfan]

This thread is for all your suggestion on how to solve the horrible referreeing in the NBA. Throw out your suggestions.

Here are mine.

1. Have a publicly published evaluation process for referrees. Every call should be evaluated after the game and each ref should be given a grade based upon calls made and missed.

2. Go to the possession arrow after the initial jump.

3. Do an "in-game" evaluation of calls (this could be done at the league office watching live feeds). It should be done on a quarter by quarter basis. If a bad foul is called, take it back. Don't take points off the board, but remove it from a player's foul count. If an out of bounds play is called incorrectly, give the other team an extra possession arrow. It doesn't completely even it out, but its a step.

4. Allow each coach two "instant replay" appeals per game. They should be used in place of twenty second time out. Appeals should be reviewed at a league office, like hockey, not by a ref on the court.

The instant replay has made the quality of officiating in the NFL better both because of the correction of calls and at the initial point of call. An aspect of it ought to be added to basketball.

 

[asudevil83]

robots...we need ROBOTS

i do see a big problem with your logic. a HUGE percentage of calls that are made are the correct calls. the problem is the calls that ARENT made.

how are you going to fix the problem of a guy getting mugged around the arch and no foul is called....or the guy who drives the lane and gets hammered, with no call?

you CANT have coaches or players challenging non-calls....or you'd get the point where the NBA is nothing more than street ball rules.

 

[azirish]

robots...we need ROBOTS

i do see a big problem with your logic. a HUGE percentage of calls that are made are the correct calls. the problem is the calls that ARENT made.

how are you going to fix the problem of a guy getting mugged around the arch and no foul is called....or the guy who drives the lane and gets hammered, with no call?

you CANT have coaches or players challenging non-calls....or you'd get the point where the NBA is nothing more than street ball rules.

Actually, I think it would add a lot if the coaches could have formal challenges of calls = at the cost of a timeout. If a coach complains, the ref can simply threaten a timeout call if he doesn't shut up. It's a bigger threat than a technical because there would be less of a thresshold problem.

In any case, asudevil83 is right. For the Suns, the big problem is non-calls (except when Amare gets hit for ticky tacks). When refs refus to call hand checking and grabbing; it hurts the Suns more than other teams due to the Suns style. So while the Suns could adopt the grabbing style the Spurs love, it would mean a lot more foul calls which would slow the game down.

BTW, the fact that the Suns drafted two physical defenders suggest that they are trying to become better prepared for when the refs swallow their whistles. I just hope they can shoot well enough to stay on the floor when needed.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

1. Have a publicly published evaluation process for referrees. Every call should be evaluated after the game and each ref should be given a grade based upon calls made and missed.

And give the lynch mob even more torches and pitchforks? I don't think so. Evaluate the refs better must be a priority though.

2. Go to the possession arrow after the initial jump.

God no. That's one of the worst things about college hoops.

3. Do an "in-game" evaluation of calls (this could be done at the league office watching live feeds). It should be done on a quarter by quarter basis. If a bad foul is called, take it back. Don't take points off the board, but remove it from a player's foul count. If an out of bounds play is called incorrectly, give the other team an extra possession arrow. It doesn't completely even it out, but its a step.

Never going to happen. Not feasible and would lead to even more conspiracy theories.

4. Allow each coach two "instant replay" appeals per game. They should be used in place of twenty second time out. Appeals should be reviewed at a league office, like hockey, not by a ref on the court.

Couldn't use instant replay on judgment calls, so you'd only have out of bounds and things like that. I guess that could work although slowing down the game even more probably isn't what Stern and owners have in mind.

The instant replay has made the quality of officiating in the NFL better both because of the correction of calls and at the initial point of call. An aspect of it ought to be added to basketball.

That's very debateable.

 

[Maligzar]

Refs should be evaluated but that information needs to be kept private. I have no problem with the best "team" "winning" the chance to officiate in the playoffs, but how that is determined should not be public.

Part of the problem is just the way the game is played. If every foul was called you would end up losing half your team before the third quarter. Fouls slow down the game a lot, and basketball is very boring when it is slow.

Not to mention that coaches coach players to "get away with what they can."

While it is obviously important to have good refs in there, it's almost more important to have honest people in there. I don't mind bad calls if they are just that, bad calls. I mind when the calls are because the ref is being influenced by an outside source to make those decisions.

 

[azirish]

The problem is figuring out how to get consistency. The rules say "no hand checking", which is impossible to enforce. But letting one guy get mugged while another player gets free trips to the line on the same level of contact is just wrong. The rules define what is supposed to be called, but does not provide guilelines as to how strictly the rules should be applied.

The ESPN article on refs suggest that the league office doesn't do anything to clarify. The reult is that one week they might get dinged for calling too tight and the next week treat the same call as a blown call. It's a crazy making system and Stern is too much in denial to deal with it.

 

[myrondizzo]

i think that the best step would be to take away star treatment. make sure that if its a foul in the 1st its a foul in the 4th. these are the things that drive me nuts. when the league comes out and says that they are going to enforce the hand checking and then by the time the playoffs roll around the rules have been forgotten.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I think allowing coaches 2 challenges per game

If the call gets changed, they keep the challenge, if its wrong, they lose the challenge and a time out

challenges can only be used on calls that render a dead ball

 

[Cheesebeef]

boy, using the NFL as an example of how "challenges" could be used really doesn't wash with me for the simple fact that fouls are judgement calls, plain and simple. Basically, a foul in the NBA is akin to a penalty in the NFL and in the NFL replays CAN NOT be used to challenge fouls for good reason - all fouls are judgement calls and there are likely fouls on EVERY play.

I just don't see the challenge system working because the burden of proof is too high on fouls, which are always judgement calls, to ever find something meeting the NFL standard of incontrovertible (I don't think that's the word) evidence which can overturn a call.

also, the possession arrow is one of the worst things about college basketball that leaves critical moments of the game possibly up to chance, rather that man versus man skill.

 

[Errntknght]

I like the possession arrow because it rewards the skill of being able tie up an opponent with the ball the same amount for all players, regardless of how tall they are. They gain a half of a possession every time they do it - no chance involved.

I also like it because its simple and quick.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

boy, using the NFL as an example of how "challenges" could be used really doesn't wash with me for the simple fact that fouls are judgement calls, plain and simple. Basically, a foul in the NBA is akin to a penalty in the NFL and in the NFL replays CAN NOT be used to challenge fouls for good reason - all fouls are judgement calls and there are likely fouls on EVERY play.

I just don't see the challenge system working because the burden of proof is too high on fouls, which are always judgement calls, to ever find something meeting the NFL standard of incontrovertible (I don't think that's the word) evidence which can overturn a call.

also, the possession arrow is one of the worst things about college basketball that leaves critical moments of the game possibly up to chance, rather that man versus man skill.

Are you saying NFL calls are more objective and NBA calls are more subjective?

I think that's where the problem lies. With an overhaul of officiating and a challenge system in place, I think we will see more clear cut and consistent calls. Because right now the excuse for NBA officiating is "it was a judgement call"

 

[arwillan]

basically the nfl is based on a much slow pased game. they run a play, have a 40 second clock before they have to start the next, and then they run another, and then play is stopped, etc etc. it wouldnt work in basketball because of pace and constant change of posession

 

[Cheesebeef]

Are you saying NFL calls are more objective and NBA calls are more subjective?

no, I'm saying that replay is ONLY used in objective places, like change of possession in the NFL, spotting of the ball. Fouls, or in the NFL's case, penalties, CAN NOT be challenged by coaches because every penalty is subjective. And if you think there isn't star treatment in the NFL, I would completely disagree.

I think that's where the problem lies. With an overhaul of officiating and a challenge system in place, I think we will see more clear cut and consistent calls. Because right now the excuse for NBA officiating is "it was a judgement call"[/QUOTE]

again, you're talking about a challenge system working like it does in the NFL, but your ignoring what is actually able to be challenged in the NFL.

 

[Mainstreet]

i think that the best step would be to take away star treatment. make sure that if its a foul in the 1st its a foul in the 4th. these are the things that drive me nuts. when the league comes out and says that they are going to enforce the hand checking and then by the time the playoffs roll around the rules have been forgotten.

I think your take is correct. I've always heard that the fans come to see the "stars" play, however, I think the "stars" will adapt their play with a well officiated game. I think this nonsense that "stars" need preferential treatment is lame especially since certain players like Nash are bludgeoned in the playoffs with no-calls. The referees should call the fouls the same all season and in the playoffs irregardless of the player. I thought it was the Commissioner's job to make sure this happens.

The poor refereeing this past season with the apparent support of the NBA league office sickens me. This past season was the first season I wondered if certain NBA games were fixed or the referees were totally blind. I'm not into the blind theory.

 

[Bufalay]

The NBA would be better off letting players call their own fouls and have refs there to settle disputes. They should also allow players to fight that way people will be afraid of calling BS fouls.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Are you saying NFL calls are more objective and NBA calls are more subjective?

I think that's where the problem lies. With an overhaul of officiating and a challenge system in place, I think we will see more clear cut and consistent calls. Because right now the excuse for NBA officiating is "it was a judgment call"

A challenge system is an easy dot to connect for fans, because the NFL uses it but Cheese is right, two different games. The NFL challenge system is limited to very specific things such as Change of possession

The NBA is a judgment league, that's kind of the deal fans need to accept and all the video replay in the world won't do anything to improve the quality of refs. IMO the instant replay era has dumbed down the quality of referees significantly in the NFL. All calls are made now to favor replayablity, meaning let the play run even if it's obviously wrong just so it's repayable. How is that exactly improving the quality of officiating?

The minimum that replaying fouls will do, is make fans "feel better" but there are so many calls in a game, that it would be utterly meaningless unless you replayed every single call. Eventually people like you would be calling for 3 a game or 4 or hell maybe 10, replay is a slippery slope and eventually the NBA will be about as exciting as Soccer.

The league obviously needs a change at the very top and a change in evaluation and the people who were doing the evaluation. And refs need to be publically accountable for their work but instant replay of judgement calls would be horrible for the game.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Are you saying NFL calls are more objective and NBA calls are more subjective?

I think that's where the problem lies. With an overhaul of officiating and a challenge system in place, I think we will see more clear cut and consistent calls. Because right now the excuse for NBA officiating is "it was a judgement call"

You don't get it, the NFL does not allow challenges for objective calls like penalties, they don't even allow replay for plays that are blown dead by the whistle. The NBA has replay for end of quarter calls, if you want a challange system for out of bounds calls or change of possession then I am fine with this. But I would not be okay with fouls, sorry, bad idea.

 

[Mainstreet]

The NBA would be better off letting players call their own fouls and have refs there to settle disputes. They should also allow players to fight that way people will be afraid of calling BS fouls.

I'm sure you are using some sarcasm here but sadly you are close to the truth. In the old days they used to have players that were enforcers who leveled the playing field when opposing players gave their team a cheap shot.

 

[BC867]

In the old days they used to have players that were enforcers who leveled the playing field when opposing players gave their team a cheap shot.

We miss you Maurice Lucas.

It's especially motivational for a team when its enforcer is a key starter, rather than a bench guy like Robert *****-y.