Screw your coach’s challenge (The league has other ideas)

Yesterday we dug deep into the data to discuss how best to use coach’s challenges in NBA games. Which kinds of calls, which parts of the game...what it takes to succeed with more than 80 percent of your challenges like the Knicks, instead of less than 30 percent of the time like the Spurs (who somehow have only had five successful challenges all season).

Today the mission is different: to explain why coach’s challenges were never the right solution.

Slow-motion replay can warp your brain into thinking NBA refereeing is easy. But stand on the baseline as Giannis crashes through the defense, with one real-time angle in lousy human eyes and...refereeing is hard as hell. Owing to the fact players get faster every year, it’s harder than ever. No human could ever call a game perfectly; that’s a job for a cyborg...(subscription required to read entire article).

I still haven't seen a coach challenge a referee's failure to call a penalty for traveling or "walking with the ball", yet you see players taking like two and a half to 3 steps on their way in and you see them get away with it all the time! Unless it's changed, I thought the rule is that players are only allowed one and a half steps. It's never talked about at the announcer's table or by any of the teams. What gives?

“What gives?”

The league is trying to increase certain parts of the game for fan enjoyment. The sport requires people to do things in an orderly and controlled atmosphere. That would be boring to the fans so they allow things (ignore) so they can generate both offense and defense. Rules get in the way. If they wanted to, even at the NBA level the players would be hamstrung if they had to follow the rules. Nobody wants to see players at the line, so they let the violence exist with body contact many times initiated by the offensive player. And as for rebounding, if it is side by side or a “superstar” initiates the contact, no call. It’s to put butts in the seats. And this is why the women’s game has failed and they are changing that with the ignoring of contact. But the players are using it as a weapon to harm the game so until the league changes the flow, it will get more violent. And it will fill the stands and sell pennants, jerseys, and food/drink. And the drink is to add to the enjoyment of the violence.

I can remember when simple hand checking was illegal. And after the first year, it was ignored. AT Christmas time in the early 80’s, the NCAA decided that every foul under two minutes was going to be an automatic two shot shooting foul, they opened up a can of worms. Since the foul was going to be a shooting foul, the defenders made sure the offensive player didn’t get a shot off and they just hammered the offensive player. That rule was withdrawn right after the Christmas break tournament.

wy69

“The shot clock and the three-point shot completely changed the college game.”

The three point shot is a novelty. But the shot clock allowed the erasing of the closely guarded rule and should have erased he back court count, but didn’t. They have 30 seconds to inbound and draw iron on he rim. But they don’t get a fresh 30, it is dropped to 20 in the women’s game. The men get a fresh 30.

And under certain rules, the NCAA allows the advancing of the throw in to midcourt so that has an effect on play.

Don’t get started on advantageous false double fouls. They control that with a possession arrow.

wy69

The shot clock and the three-point shot completely changed the college game.

I agree. The three-point shot should be a gamble instead of the normal shot. I've seen teams pass up a dunk to try a 3-point shot. Dumb, dumber, and dumbist!

But the shot clock was absolutely necessary. I'll never forgive Dean Smith for his "four-corners" play, which I dubbed "bas-keep-a-ball" but has never caught on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.