NBA- Magic vs Wizards (Video)

[mutantducky]

Also on the ball rolling out part
20 seconds to 105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE
it is subjective and yeah it probably was going to roll out. But looking at the video,when the touches occur and the location of the ball on the rim, I'm not convinced that was the right call. I think the ball was still going to bounce around there and I don't see how you can say with 100% certainty that it was going to roll out. It also looks like the Wizard player by hitting the rim causes the ball to bounce away too.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

Also on the ball rolling out part
20 seconds to 105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE
it is subjective and yeah it probably was going to roll out. But looking at the video,when the touches occur and the location of the ball on the rim, I'm not convinced that was the right call. I think the ball was still going to bounce around there and I don't see how you can say with 100% certainty that it was going to roll out. It also looks like the Wizard player by hitting the rim causes the ball to bounce away too.

Agree. I could not say whether that ball was going in or not at that point. As such, you have to assume is still had a chance to go in.

[mutantducky]

It also looks like when the Wizard player hits the rim it causes the ball to bounce away a bit giving the appearance that it is rolling out. So close, tough replay. I wonder how long they took? I also wonder how many people they have looking at it and how a decision is reached.

-

http://www.nba.com/lakers/releases/l...0_replayCenter

[mutantducky]

I was reading about how in the Timberwolves game the replays took way too long. And for the play discussed above I understand how you can't get it right away. There needs to be a balance between the speed of the replay and getting the call right. Of course the main priority should be getting it right, but not at the cost of holding the game up which was the case with the Twolves last night. I would do a max 2 minute review. If it is unclear have a majority vote or uphold the original call. If need be do a jump at mid-court but the main issue is the review time needs to be shortened even if in the end the call is wrong.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I was reading about how in the Timberwolves game the replays took way too long. And for the play discussed above I understand how you can't get it right away. There needs to be a balance between the speed of the replay and getting the call right. Of course the main priority should be getting it right, but not at the cost of holding the game up which was the case with the Twolves last night. I would do a max 2 minute review. If it is unclear have a majority vote or uphold the original call. If need be do a jump at mid-court but the main issue is the review time needs to be shortened even if in the end the call is wrong.

The whole reason for the review process is to get the call right. To arbitrarily decide that the value of the process is based on a time limit, seems anathema to the original premise . . . "Why is it that the last place I look for something is always the place I find it?" . .
As annoying as a drawn-out review can be, it is still part of the process.

[mutantducky]

I disagree. The NBA is about entertainment, not solely I know, but you have to consider the fans watching on tv and in the stands, the players on the court, and I think the more important issue is having a replay system that works well and fast. If you have replays lasting over 3 minutes, and it sounds like it did in the TWolves game, then that hurts the NBA brand and the fan experience.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lillard...5748--nba.html
REPLAY ISSUES

The NBA revamped its replay system in the offseason, adding more referees in the replay center in New Jersey in hopes of speeding up the process. You never would've known that in the second half Monday night when several replays resulted in long waits for a final ruling. That included Wiggins' goaltending and a shot clock violation on the Blazers that was eventually ruled an inadvertent whistle. ''In the last two minutes, nothing went our way, including the 30 minutes it took to figure out a couple calls,'' Martin said. ''We'll learn from it.''

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I disagree. The NBA is about entertainment, not solely I know, but you have to consider the fans watching on tv and in the stands, the players on the court, and I think the more important issue is having a replay system that works well and fast. If you have replays lasting over 3 minutes, and it sounds like it did in the TWolves game, then that hurts the NBA brand and the fan experience.

Yahoo! Sports
REPLAY ISSUES

The NBA revamped its replay system in the offseason, adding more referees in the replay center in New Jersey in hopes of speeding up the process. You never would've known that in the second half Monday night when several replays resulted in long waits for a final ruling. That included Wiggins' goaltending and a shot clock violation on the Blazers that was eventually ruled an inadvertent whistle. ''In the last two minutes, nothing went our way, including the 30 minutes it took to figure out a couple calls,'' Martin said. ''We'll learn from it.''

Does anything in the article tell us how long the replay reviews took, or is it just that they "felt" too long?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I disagree. The NBA is about entertainment,

It's also about gambling and if "getting it right" means a difference in the spread / fantasy points, etc -- then the extra time isn't going to matter to those affected.