0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: fairweatherfan on September 24, 2010, 09:06:32 AMThey said the same thing a few years ago, and then had to dial it back almost immediately after the refs started calling mass amounts of borderline Ts. I'd expect about the same thing this time.Yup -- same, same.Personally, I'd like to see a zero tolerance policy that disallowed any communication with the referees from the players. Yeah, it would suck for awhile ... but the players would adapt in time and the game would be better for it.
They said the same thing a few years ago, and then had to dial it back almost immediately after the refs started calling mass amounts of borderline Ts. I'd expect about the same thing this time.
Quote from: Who on September 24, 2010, 12:41:38 PMQuote from: fairweatherfan on September 24, 2010, 09:06:32 AMThey said the same thing a few years ago, and then had to dial it back almost immediately after the refs started calling mass amounts of borderline Ts. I'd expect about the same thing this time.Yup -- same, same.Personally, I'd like to see a zero tolerance policy that disallowed any communication with the referees from the players. Yeah, it would suck for awhile ... but the players would adapt in time and the game would be better for it. I wouldn't mind seeing the rugby rule where all communication with the ref is either by the coach or a designated team captain. If the captain gets enough Ts the status is stripped for the season and somebody else has to take over. It'd clean things up a lot.
Quote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 12:21:33 PMSay, give each team three challenges a game, with the replay up on the jumbotron.And with the decision depending on the volume of applause from the crowd?
Say, give each team three challenges a game, with the replay up on the jumbotron.
Quote from: fairweatherfan on September 24, 2010, 12:47:42 PMQuote from: Who on September 24, 2010, 12:41:38 PMQuote from: fairweatherfan on September 24, 2010, 09:06:32 AMThey said the same thing a few years ago, and then had to dial it back almost immediately after the refs started calling mass amounts of borderline Ts. I'd expect about the same thing this time.Yup -- same, same.Personally, I'd like to see a zero tolerance policy that disallowed any communication with the referees from the players. Yeah, it would suck for awhile ... but the players would adapt in time and the game would be better for it. I wouldn't mind seeing the rugby rule where all communication with the ref is either by the coach or a designated team captain. If the captain gets enough Ts the status is stripped for the season and somebody else has to take over. It'd clean things up a lot.That'd probably be the best way to get things between refs and players under control.I don't think either the refs or players want to change things that much, so I don't see it happening.
Quote from: BballTim on September 24, 2010, 11:35:12 AMQuote from: moiso on September 24, 2010, 08:59:13 AMQuote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This actually seems like a good idea to me. Have a supervisor ref sitting courtside and have the refs huddle with him during timeouts and between quarters. Or have someone watching from another location on television and have that person comunicate with the referee team during breaks in the action. Why wait until a game is over for the refs to receive feedback? This makes perfect sense. As a concept, it makes very little sense. Having officials change the way they ref from quarter to quarter (or timeout to timeout) will cause much more harm than good. Players will never be able to get a feel for how the game is being called, how much contact is allowed or the like.In both football (American)and tennis players or a team are allowed a certain number of challenges (to be reviewed by separate officials), I believe. Any time a challenge goes the team's way, it does not count against the total number allowed. If the challenge is decided against, the number of challenges left decreases by one. People are pretty careful about the challenges because they don't want to get to the end of the game/match when a challenge might mean the difference between win and loss and not have one to give. Say, give each team three challenges a game, with the replay up on the jumbotron.
Quote from: moiso on September 24, 2010, 08:59:13 AMQuote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This actually seems like a good idea to me. Have a supervisor ref sitting courtside and have the refs huddle with him during timeouts and between quarters. Or have someone watching from another location on television and have that person comunicate with the referee team during breaks in the action. Why wait until a game is over for the refs to receive feedback? This makes perfect sense. As a concept, it makes very little sense. Having officials change the way they ref from quarter to quarter (or timeout to timeout) will cause much more harm than good. Players will never be able to get a feel for how the game is being called, how much contact is allowed or the like.
Quote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This actually seems like a good idea to me. Have a supervisor ref sitting courtside and have the refs huddle with him during timeouts and between quarters. Or have someone watching from another location on television and have that person comunicate with the referee team during breaks in the action. Why wait until a game is over for the refs to receive feedback? This makes perfect sense.
What the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum.
I believe they want to take even more money from these guys or they just want the NBA to close shop, because this is humanely impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if some the guys decide to quit and go over seas... Again this is impossible. Reaction is just that a reaction (normal), if its excessive (meaning after the 1st reaction you continue to pout) then you should get a Technical. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND I'M FURIOUS RIGHT NOW Most of these guys (the star players) won't be able to play many games because of serving suspensions. DO THE FANS WANT THAT
Quote from: ACF on September 24, 2010, 10:43:08 AMQuote from: kozlodoev on September 24, 2010, 10:36:54 AMQuote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This has actually been tried in soccer.Please elaborate.In Bulgaria, at least, the football federation delegates a person to each game. The said person observes the game and, among other things, evaluates the referees. Or should I say "grades", because they're literally assigning a 1 to 10 grade on the performance of the refs, which can affect future appointments.This tends to have zero effect on the quality of refereeing.
Quote from: kozlodoev on September 24, 2010, 10:36:54 AMQuote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This has actually been tried in soccer.Please elaborate.
Quote from: thirstyboots18 on September 24, 2010, 06:56:00 AMWhat the game of Basketball needs is....another layer of referees to ref the refs, if you get my meaning. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. This has actually been tried in soccer.