"WNBA who ?"

[UConnCat]

use a replay challenge like the NFL ?

Penalties can't be challenged on replay in the NFL. A pass interference or holding call on the last play of a football game isn't reviewable just like a foul call in the NBA/WNBA isn't reviewable.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

There is nothing they can do now, tough luck PHX! But you would think the Players and Coaches have been complaining for years!
I had bumped into Patty Coyle who was the NYL head coach at that time and asked her how the players & coaches didn't go insane with the refs! And she said everyone knows it's a major problem but if you really complain all the refs will pay you back so you don't go to far!
The WNBA should address the in this offseason! It's turned past joke level to hurting the leagues competition!

 

[John Glass]

Penalties can't be challenged on replay in the NFL. A pass interference or holding call on the last play of a football game isn't reviewable just like a foul call in the NBA/WNBA isn't reviewable.

the WNBA could allow challenges on anything, losing a timeout if you a wrong would minimize it's use to critical calls . Maybe 2 challenges a game

 

[DaddyChoc]

the WNBA could allow challenges on anything, losing a timeout if you a wrong would minimize it's use to critical calls . Maybe 2 challenges a game

like Tennis?

 

[John Glass]

like Tennis?

yes, I doubt it would be as quick as tennis. It would probably add a few minutes to a game.

 

[UcMiami]

yes, I doubt it would be as quick as tennis. It would probably add a few minutes to a game.

But there is no sport that allows challenges of 'judgement call' penalties that I am aware of. If the chair decided a tennis player has misbehaved, they cannot challenge a penalty the chair imposes. If an NFL official calls a penalty the coach cannot challenge the penalty, if a soccer official gives a red card there is no challenge. All challenges in sports are based on incorrect identification of boundaries, touches, timing, etc. where technology can 'slow down the play' to clearly see what the eye might miss in real time. The judgement calls of officials are not challengeable.
And in reality it sure looked like a foul to me - a foul that is usually not called with time running out, but a foul. If instead of a loose ball in the back court situation it had been a shot attempt, would people have the same issue, or a rebound under the basket with a potential put-back?
And you are also saying officials should have different standards for different times in the game - so would the foul call have been acceptable if there were 10 seconds left, 2 minutes left? But a call with 2 minutes left would have altered the game situation completely at the 10 second mark and the 0.8 second mark anyway. If the official calls the sixth foul on Maya at the 2 minute mark, the whole game changes, so should they not call that foul?

 

[WestCoastFan]

Watching pro basketball...men's or women's...I often think that the officiating is more structured in the WWE. I say more teams need to use the Atomic Knee Drop or the Figure Four...that should make it more fair! Or have Cena and Lesnar be the refs.

 

[John Glass]

But there is no sport that allows challenges of 'judgement call' penalties that I am aware of. If the chair decided a tennis player has misbehaved, they cannot challenge a penalty the chair imposes. If an NFL official calls a penalty the coach cannot challenge the penalty, if a soccer official gives a red card there is no challenge. All challenges in sports are based on incorrect identification of boundaries, touches, timing, etc. where technology can 'slow down the play' to clearly see what the eye might miss in real time. The judgement calls of officials are not challengeable.
And in reality it sure looked like a foul to me - a foul that is usually not called with time running out, but a foul. If instead of a loose ball in the back court situation it had been a shot attempt, would people have the same issue, or a rebound under the basket with a potential put-back?
And you are also saying officials should have different standards for different times in the game - so would the foul call have been acceptable if there were 10 seconds left, 2 minutes left? But a call with 2 minutes left would have altered the game situation completely at the 10 second mark and the 0.8 second mark anyway. If the official calls the sixth foul on Maya at the 2 minute mark, the whole game changes, so should they not call that foul?

you make some good points, However, I think baseball does have a system that allows challenges to judgement calls and it works well, in fact they could or should allow more challenges.

I think allowing a basketball coach to challenge a call twice a game it would help the game. They would risk losing a timeout, so they would only use the challenge on critical calls.

 

[DaddyChoc]

you make some good points, However, I think baseball does have a system that allows challenges to judgement calls and it works well, in fact they could or should allow more challenges.

I think allowing a basketball coach to challenge a call twice a game it would help the game. They would risk losing a timeout, so they would only use the challenge on critical calls.

can they challenge balls and strikes?

 

[John Glass]

can they challenge balls and strikes?

no, almost everything else

 

[DaddyChoc]

no, almost everything else

a close call at 2nd... hand on the bag or tagged out

 

[UcMiami]

you make some good points, However, I think baseball does have a system that allows challenges to judgement calls and it works well, in fact they could or should allow more challenges.

I think allowing a basketball coach to challenge a call twice a game it would help the game. They would risk losing a timeout, so they would only use the challenge on critical calls.

But those are 'boundary' or 'touch' issues in baseball - they can look at out calls, HRs and catches - but those are not 'judgement calls' they are issues that by slowing down the action you can see if the ball hit above or below a line, or a ball touched the ground before the glove, or a foot landed on a base before a ball entered a glove. But the judgement call of balls and strikes, or the point at which a player is ejected - nope. Same with football - penalties are non-reviewable except possibly 12 men calls? which again gets into a boundary issue, not a judgement issue.

 

[John Glass]

But those are 'boundary' or 'touch' issues in baseball - they can look at out calls, HRs and catches - but those are not 'judgement calls' they are issues that by slowing down the action you can see if the ball hit above or below a line, or a ball touched the ground before the glove, or a foot landed on a base before a ball entered a glove. But the judgement call of balls and strikes, or the point at which a player is ejected - nope. Same with football - penalties are non-reviewable except possibly 12 men calls? which again gets into a boundary issue, not a judgement issue.

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

 

[UcMiami]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

Yes I think he would!!!!

 

[rford53]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

An electronic strike zone would be 100% accurate. Umpires will fight it until it happens (I'll give it 7 years, 2022) and then they will be like toll gate attendants, just there to make sure the "e-z pass works and the gate opens".

 

[Beemer]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Imagine Johnny McEnroe in his prime with the current tennis system. Would he argue with a computer ?

You bet he would

 

[j66kicker]

The technology exists to make balls and strike calls without the umpire. It is going to eventually be used, could be 5 years, could be 50 years. As far as players being thrown out of a game, it will be rare if the technology increases.

Not allowing humans to call balls & strikes would significantly change the game. There are tons of "unwritten rules" about giving the pitcher an inside strike or a low strike (if the pitcher can consistently hit the same spot, the catcher will be lobbying the ump - many times successfully, but if he's just getting lucky every now and then the catcher will keep quiet about it and hope for the best. Etc, etc. etc). I don't hear anyone inside baseball calling for this change. Plus the rules on the upper and lower limits of the zone pertain to the batter's body parts, which can be interpreted differently by different umps, and how the batter wears his uniform. Who gets to program the computer on where the bottom of a particular batter's kneecap actually is? MLB gives guidelines to the umps, similar to the NFL's ever-changing referee "points of emphasis".

 

[Gus Mahler]

Not allowing humans to call balls & strikes would significantly change the game. There are tons of "unwritten rules" about giving the pitcher an inside strike or a low strike (if the pitcher can consistently hit the same spot, the catcher will be lobbying the ump - many times successfully, but if he's just getting lucky every now and then the catcher will keep quiet about it and hope for the best. Etc, etc. etc). I don't hear anyone inside baseball calling for this change. Plus the rules on the upper and lower limits of the zone pertain to the batter's body parts, which can be interpreted differently by different umps, and how the batter wears his uniform. Who gets to program the computer on where the bottom of a particular batter's kneecap actually is? MLB gives guidelines to the umps, similar to the NFL's ever-changing referee "points of emphasis".

Won't be long till they'll have emphasized everything.