Opinions on refs using video reviews in games
Interested in opinions...
One argument is that if its there the refs should use it.
I think part of the argument from fans stems from dissatisfaction with reffing, which is never going to change. People need to accept that Basketball is a fast game, and refs make judgement calls. I'm the first one to boo or cheer at a big charging call, but that's just part of the fun. Some people just need to move on from their constant harping on the refs.
I have a number of issues with "Video Reviews":
Firstly, who is responsible for the vision? The Club? NBL? Broadcaster? The classic case was the Cats & NZ game, the "official" vision was inconclusive so the original call stood, yet the Cats had their OWN camera which DID show 0.3 seconds on the clock. SO what if the basket had been waived off? Are the Cats under any obligation to turn over their vision?
What happens if we get a decent TV deal which requires the cessation of NBL TV? Will their be broadcaster vision at all venues?
Where do you draw the line? Out-of-bounds, shot-clock, , 3-point shots, goal-tending, fouls? Imagine if they had to go to video review every time a foul was called...
Lastly, I think it opens up a can of worms: As it stand, the Ref's call is law, the only time the NBL alters a result is where the scorers made an error. What happens in a situation where the outcome depends on a reviewable call, and vision overturning the call is subsequently discovered? What if somebody comes forward with video they shot on their phone, or the club had its won cameras filming, etc. My concern is that once you set a precedent, results become subject to video review.
To avoid the farcical reviews at the Cats v Breakers game, I think the only way is a "4th Ref" as used in other sports. Somebody sitting in the broadcast box with a suite of monitors. PLUS put a time limit on it. In the event of a dispute he has say 30 seconds to overturn the call otherwise it stands.