Introduced this season in the NBA, in the form of a one-year trial, the “challenge” rule allows coaches to challenge an arbitration decision in each game. Is it going to be extended? Among the technicians, opinions are very divided, and Erik Spoelstra is therefore not particularly a fan.
“My instinct tells me that it just adds confusion”, assures the Miami coach. “Because there are certain things that we can“ challenge ”and others that we cannot“ challenge ”. It adds a new layer of complexity and confusion. And does that speed up or slow down the game? “
The referees already spending a lot of time reviewing the disputed possessions, the “challenge” further cuts the rhythm of the matches for the actors and spectators. And for coaches, it is not a simple tool, because if you lose a “challenge”, you are deprived of a time-out and that can be disabling.
“I’m not sure it goes away”, recognizes Erik Spoelstra. “Obviously, this is a new element of strategy. I would like to know if it’s really popular with fans and if it tangibly improves the readability of the meetings. As a staff, we spend time talking about the strategy, knowing how to use it and how other teams use it. Stuff like that, just to try to use it better. “
The NBA is thus divided between its desire to eliminate as much as possible the refereeing errors and to try not to slow down the meetings too much, the timeouts being a problem compared to the televiewers.
“It’s a bit of a trap”, continue Erik Spoelstra. “Do you really want to get 100% perfect whistles?” And if so, what is the time limit for reversing a certain decision? This is all very debatable, when the action takes place and we see everything that is happening there. When you immerse yourself in all this complexity, there is still more to analyze, to discuss, and it takes even more time. In the end, I don’t really think it speeds up the game. “
