| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland
Back to top |
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/16/17 8:14 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| The reviews don't bother me. The only thing I question is for some of the incidental headshots, why does it take so long after they start reviewing even when it's obviously just a common foul? Even then it doesn't really bother me because I'd rather they get it right even if a review takes awhile. Of course there's also been a handful of times where I think they've gotten it wrong even after a review...
_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24355
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/16/17 8:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The funny thing is, the NBA finally started putting some measures in place to stop games taking so freaking long, and grinding to a halt due to the 93 timeouts each team gets per game. They're cutting a couple of timeouts and trying to speed things up a little. Of course, something drastic like actually making timeouts last as long as they're supposed to won't be considered.
Meanwhile we've had this WNBA season, where they've dumped 1,000 extra reviews on us, and games no longer fit in a two-hour timeslot (hence all of these doubleheader playoff days being forced onto ESPN News in the middle when things overlap, and then finishing when the sun's coming up). The competition committee is surely going to address this in the offseason. You can't have officials saying "oh, there might've been a hostile act there!" just so they can check the video to decide which basic call to make on the play. It's ridiculous. Make a damn call. It's kinda your job. |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/16/17 9:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If your team isn't as deep, these extra reviews are a godsend. More rest for the heavy minute players. I'm not sure how the coaches feel, but they get extra timeouts.
That being said, they probably should just review the more obvious stuff instead of reviewing every time a player reacts to minor non-injury-causing contact. Also, have stiffer penalties if embellishing a reaction causes an unnecessary review. Stop wasting our time with your flopping.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/16/17 9:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A flagrant is 2 shots. A tech is 1. These are things that can be done at any time. Why not just do what they do for questionable 3 point shots and review at the next natural break. If it is upgraded then have them shoot free throws before the game resumes.
If it happens in like the last 5 minutes of the game or something, where teams might change strategy based upon the score and 2 could mean a huge difference, then they can review it on the spot.
There has to be a way to keep the focus on player safety, get the call right, and not slow the game down.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 8:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Since the hostile act is essentially outside the boundaries of the game, supposedly, how about this?
Go with the call on the floor and move on -- but have the league review the tape and assess any points or suspensions after the game. So Diana Taurasi, just to pick a name at random, elbows an annoying defender in the head, and the defender, oh, another random name, Tiffany Hayes, reacts as if she's taken a straight right hand from GGG. The ref blows the whistle or not, but after reviewing the game film the league awards Taurasi one point for a flagrant one and Hayes an Oscar.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 9:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Since the hostile act is essentially outside the boundaries of the game, supposedly, how about this?
Go with the call on the floor and move on -- but have the league review the tape and assess any points or suspensions after the game. So Diana Taurasi, just to pick a name at random, elbows an annoying defender in the head, and the defender, oh, another random name, Tiffany Hayes, reacts as if she's taken a straight right hand from GGG. The ref blows the whistle or not, but after reviewing the game film the league awards Taurasi one point for a flagrant one and Hayes an Oscar. |
The only problem with this is that it only really works for Flagrant 2s. What penalty would be fair to level for flagrant 1s by the league, that would also be a deterrent? The 2 extra free throws actually hits the perfect spot for that sort of offense. A fine or suspension would feel like too extreme for a flagrant one, unless they were habitual offenders, while not doing anything would also seem wrong.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 9:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
Since the hostile act is essentially outside the boundaries of the game, supposedly, how about this?
Go with the call on the floor and move on -- but have the league review the tape and assess any points or suspensions after the game. So Diana Taurasi, just to pick a name at random, elbows an annoying defender in the head, and the defender, oh, another random name, Tiffany Hayes, reacts as if she's taken a straight right hand from GGG. The ref blows the whistle or not, but after reviewing the game film the league awards Taurasi one point for a flagrant one and Hayes an Oscar. |
The only problem with this is that it only really works for Flagrant 2s. What penalty would be fair to level for flagrant 1s by the league, that would also be a deterrent? The 2 extra free throws actually hits the perfect spot for that sort of offense. A fine or suspension would feel like too extreme for a flagrant one, unless they were habitual offenders, while not doing anything would also seem wrong. |
A very good point ... I think the basic problem is that there's no really good all-around solution.
So, as someone pointed out upthread, make the refs make their Flagrant 1 calls on the spot, and live or die with them. Then tape review can justify or downgrade such calls.
That's not great, given the penalty, but the reviews aren't that great either.
Or, as Richyyy suggests, review the Flagrant 1s at the next timeout, and then award or not award the free throws when play resumes. And then after the free throws, just pick up where they left off.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24355
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 9:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Since the hostile act is essentially outside the boundaries of the game, supposedly, how about this?
Go with the call on the floor and move on -- but have the league review the tape and assess any points or suspensions after the game. So Diana Taurasi, just to pick a name at random, elbows an annoying defender in the head, and the defender, oh, another random name, Tiffany Hayes, reacts as if she's taken a straight right hand from GGG. The ref blows the whistle or not, but after reviewing the game film the league awards Taurasi one point for a flagrant one and Hayes an Oscar. |
Except then you're not rewarding the team that's been offended against. Hence why it seemed rather unfair earlier this season when the League reviewed Taurasi's actions and suspended her for the next game. If the refs had actually done their job, she'd have been tossed and missed most of the game where she threw the shot at Hamby. Instead she gets to play it out and only miss the next one.
What exactly is wrong with the concept justintyme and I have suggested of just reviewing these things during the next break in the game? Timeouts and quarter breaks are at least two minutes long, often closer to three. That's more than enough time, and you can have the extra free throw(s) once the decision is made. If there's a brawl, or it's in the last couple of minutes, fine, review it immediately like they do now. If it's the ref-didn't-see-shit, wah-wah-I'm-holding-my-face-because-she-breathed-on-me stuff that's constantly stopping games at the moment, then just make a normal call and wait for a break. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11148
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 11:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
Since the hostile act is essentially outside the boundaries of the game, supposedly, how about this?
Go with the call on the floor and move on -- but have the league review the tape and assess any points or suspensions after the game. So Diana Taurasi, just to pick a name at random, elbows an annoying defender in the head, and the defender, oh, another random name, Tiffany Hayes, reacts as if she's taken a straight right hand from GGG. The ref blows the whistle or not, but after reviewing the game film the league awards Taurasi one point for a flagrant one and Hayes an Oscar. |
Except then you're not rewarding the team that's been offended against. Hence why it seemed rather unfair earlier this season when the League reviewed Taurasi's actions and suspended her for the next game. If the refs had actually done their job, she'd have been tossed and missed most of the game where she threw the shot at Hamby. Instead she gets to play it out and only miss the next one.
What exactly is wrong with the concept justintyme and I have suggested of just reviewing these things during the next break in the game? Timeouts and quarter breaks are at least two minutes long, often closer to three. That's more than enough time, and you can have the extra free throw(s) once the decision is made. If there's a brawl, or it's in the last couple of minutes, fine, review it immediately like they do now. If it's the ref-didn't-see-shit, wah-wah-I'm-holding-my-face-because-she-breathed-on-me stuff that's constantly stopping games at the moment, then just make a normal call and wait for a break. |
I like it ... the only reason to delay is that a suspension is a big deal and can have a real impact, especially in a short season. To my mind, sitting out a full game, clearly justified after a long review, is a bigger penalty than sitting out part of a game -- especially if the in-game suspension is a review that might be a little rushed if it takes too long.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24355
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/17/17 12:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| I like it ... the only reason to delay is that a suspension is a big deal and can have a real impact, especially in a short season. To my mind, sitting out a full game, clearly justified after a long review, is a bigger penalty than sitting out part of a game -- especially if the in-game suspension is a review that might be a little rushed if it takes too long. |
Oh anything flagrant (or tecchnical) is still going to be reviewed by the league afterwards. Taurasi would've been suspended for the next game even if she'd been (correctly) tossed from the game she was playing in. I'm not suggesting any of that should change. You just stop wasting our time during the games. |
|
|
|
or start jumping up and down with a lot of armmoments and waving away the official. Easy T for me