Posts Tagged ‘competition committee’

Instant-replay tweaks, rules changes announced for 2014-15

An average NBA fan can go years, maybe even an entire hoops-viewing career, without witnessing an instance of one team playing with too many men on the court.

But that potential predicament got a lot of attention in the new instant-replay and rules modifications announced Thursday by the NBA. So woe to the team whose sixth man doesn’t wait for someone to sub out before subbing in.

Here is the rundown of changes and tweaks recommended by the NBA’s Competition Committee at its offseason meetings and approved by the Board of Governors. They’ll go into effect beginning with Friday’s preseason games:

Expansion of Instant Replay Rules

  • Officials may utilize instant replay whenever they are not reasonably certain a team had an improper number of players on the court while the ball was in play.

Modification of Instant Replay Rules

  • Instant replay triggers that are currently in effect only during the last two minutes of regulation and the entire overtime period(s) instead shall be in effect only during the last two minutes of regulation and the last two minutes of overtime period(s).
  • Officials may now conduct an instant replay review whenever they are not reasonably certain as to which team should be awarded possession after a ball becomes out of bounds or whether an out of bounds in fact occurred during the last two minutes of regulation and the last two minutes of overtime period(s).  Previously, officials could only use replay if they weren’t reasonably certain as to which of two players on opposing teams caused the ball to become out of bounds.
  • Officials are now permitted to utilize instant replay whenever they are not reasonably certain whether a foul that was called meets the criteria of a flagrant foul.  Previously, the foul had to be called a flagrant on the floor in order to utilize instant replay.
  • Officials are now permitted to utilize instant replay whenever they are not reasonably certain whether a foul that was called meets the criteria of a clear-path-to-the-basket foul.  Previously, the foul had to be called a clear-path foul on the floor in order to utilize instant replay.
  • Officials may now utilize instant replay any time they are not certain when any player (offensive or defensive) without the ball was fouled relative to the timing of a successful shot.  Prior to this change, officials could only review the timing when an offensive player without the ball was fouled.

Rules Changes

  • If a team has too many players on the court while the ball is in play, (i) the offending team would both be assessed a non-unsportsmanlike technical foul and lose possession if it had possession at the time the violation was discovered, and (ii) the non-offending team would continue to have the option of either accepting or nullifying the game action that occurred during the violation.  Previously, if the offending team had possession, it would keep possession of the ball despite the violation.
  • Teams may freely substitute players whenever any timeout is called.  Prior to this change, there were limited circumstances in which a team couldn’t substitute for certain players at timeouts.
  • The shot clock will no longer be reset to five seconds when a held ball is caused by the defense with fewer than five seconds remaining on the clock.

One notable change is that referees no longer will have to label a foul as a Flagrant 1 foul to trigger replay access, at which point they determine if the contact was a Flagrant 1, a Flagrant 2 or merely a common foul. The simple act of labeling the foul in advance, and then “reversing” that decision, often generated needless reactions from players, coaches and crowds.

It’s worth noting, too, that two other areas of potential replay use were not among the changes announced for the 2014-15 season. There still is no provision for a “challenge” system comparable to what the NFL and MLB have for coaches and managers. And out-of-bounds reviews still offer no remedy when an uncalled foul – contact that caused the ball to go out – is seen in the replay.

NBA Weighs Finals Switch To 2-2-1-1-1

After 29 years of staging its championship round in a 2-3-2 format of home/road games, the NBA is considering a return to the 2-2-1-1-1 system used for The Finals prior to 1985 and still used for all earlier playoff rounds.

The league’s competition committee voted to recommend the switch to the Board of Governors, which is expected to approve the move at its meetings Oct. 22-23. Still to be determined: whether the change would take effect for The Finals this June or wait till 2015. The committee’s recommendation was first reported by the Boston Herald Sunday.

“The idea was raised at the competition committee and was well-received,” NBA spokesman Tim Frank said Sunday, “and the committee ultimately unanimously voted to recommend the change in format.”

The 2-3-2 format was adopted for the championship round in 1985, after three consecutive Finals – and nine in a span of 10 years – had played across three time zones. Six of those nine had gone at least to Game 6, requiring additional coast-to-coast travel at a time when even the teams flew commercially.

A relatively new commissioner (David Stern began his term on Feb. 1, 1984) was aware of the demands on demands on players, coaches and staff. Stern also was keen to marketing issues, and the increased expense to newspapers and other traditional media in booking extra flights. Now NBA teams travel via charter flights. Many traditional news outlets no longer cover The Finals, a nod to their own industry’s economic woes rather than travel costs.

Also, the 2-3-2 format has its own issues. First, it veers dramatically from the staging of home/road games used in the earlier rounds. Second, the higher-seeded team, which begins The Finals at home, has what some have considered a homecourt disadvantage through five games.

Through the years, many have debated the psychological edges and pressures facing both clubs. Is it tougher for the higher-seeded team to know that, if it loses Game 1 or 2, the series might not return to its city? Or does the lower-seeded team face a greater burden at home, considering how difficult it is to beat a Finals opponent three straight times?

A reversion to 2-2-1-1-1 at least would make the format consistent with the earlier rounds, seemingly a more legitimate way to determine a champion. For the record, since 1985 the teams with Games 1, 2, 6 and 7 at home (if needed) have won 21 of the 29 Finals (.724) in the 2-3-2 format. In the 38 NBA/BAA championships through 1984 (including some played with alternating home games or even 2-3-2 in the 1950s), the higher-seeded teams went 26-12 (.684).