mate, the NBL can't even make the venues have suitable technology to ensure livestats works, not sure how they are going to make venues have this level of technology available.

Inconsistent spelling of consistent is also a big issue!

Carfino stated (wrongly or rightly) that NBL currently doesn't allow the technology, so that should settle the issue, BUT...

I believe that the tech should be used at umpires discretion.

Alternatively, why not allow each coach one opportunity per game to use video review? I wouldn't be an advocate of this idea, but would hate to see a GF decided by a wrong call that could've been prevented.

Tough decision either way!

anon i disagree having a rule for sixth foul is completely irrelevant and inconsistent with our discussion. This is a referees aid. How many times would this type of situation occur? Its very rare so technology should be allowed. But the nbl did state they didnt allow it so essentially it shouldnt have even gotten to what happened but im happy the right call was made

anon i disagree having a rule for sixth foul is completely irrelevant and inconsistent with our discussion. This is a referees aid. How many times would this type of situation occur? Its very rare so technology should be allowed. But the nbl did state they didnt allow it so essentially it shouldnt have even gotten to what happened but im happy the right call was made

what the hell is with my double posts!

The rate of mistakes by referees is way lower than the rate of mistakes by players. Just count the turnovers, fouls and missed shots per game. These go further to determining outcomes than any single foul call.

I had to laugh at the storm in a teacup over goal umpires' incorrect decisions in AFL this year. The stats were that goal umpires made 10 wrong calls in the whole season. That's out of about 10,000 decisions for the season - an error rate of around 0.1% . By contrast, the players' error rate (missed shots at goal) was around 50%. Yet people agonised about the desperate need to improve the quality of goal umpires' decisions. The cost per changed (improved) decision, would have been enormous. I see this discussion as similarly aiming to introduce a solution to a problem that will carry greater costs per changed decision than probably is warranted. The cost per changed game results (win/loss) would be even higher. This has to be a factor as we are dealing with a professional league that operates on business principles.

Likewise, in a professional league, more hangs on mistakes than in regular sport. Hence, players who make too many mistakes don't get played. Also, most people will continue to criticise refereeing as a single mistake by a referee is seen as more important than a single mistake by a player, at a given point in a game. Finally, we have the opportunity to have "do-overs" for referees' decisions but not so for players'.

That said, it is not sensible to assume the wrong call when the teams are neck and neck in the last 2 minutes will determine the game outcome. Maybe it was the wrong call on the previous play that resulted in a 4 point play, that put the teams neck and neck to begin with. Or a wrong call before that. Or the wrong call that put a key player off the court with their 5th foul and turned the game on its ear, 2 minutes into the third quarter. Or the wrong call that gave that player their first foul in the first minute of the game and meant they fouled out early in the last quarter. Or.....

So if we want to use video technology to review refereeing decisions, we need to recognise that limiting it to parts of games will just create pressure to use it for the rest of the games. So, I think it's all or none.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure I'd want to pay more to watch games just to have 1 or 2 refereeing decisions changed in each game.

If they DIDN't go to the replay what call would they have settled on.

Would they have decided the foul was called, the clock was stopped on 0.00 and the buzzer had not sounded therefore the fouled occured before time expired?

As for the technology argument, what about Tennis, centre court or a couple of courts use/have hawk eye technology but the scrubs playing on the other courts do not.

Many decisions get changed by the use of hawk eye, so a clear disadvantage to the lower ranked players who don't get to play on these courts.

also the discussion about technology for a call is irrelevent. The rule allows for 2 things.

1) whether a shot is erroneously called a 2 and not a 3 or visa versa,at the end of a period
2) if a shot was released before time expired at the end of a period.

Thats it, there is no other reason for going to video replay.

Here is the rule:
46:12

The referee has been authorised in the previous rules to use technical equipment to decide if a last shot at the end of each period or any extra period was released during playing time.

This authorisation is expanded in the 2010 rules to include the use of such equipment at the end of each period or extra period to determine if a shot for goal counts for 2 or 3 points.

totally understand that the rule is not in force in the NBL (yet, watch this space). What i was illuding to was that the rule does not allow for the referee to check if a foul occured before time expired. That was the point.