PBA officiating: Unlimited coach's challenges, anyone?

Michael Angelo B. Asis

It had to happen in the Manila Clasico game. An egregious missed call against the most popular team in the PBA. Yes, that will push the conversation.

In the final play that could have affected the outcome, Scottie Thompson’s shot was clearly affected by the contact, and by definition, that should be a foul.

Would it affect the outcome of the game? Definitely, since it would result in free throws.

We all knew what happened, and the PBA’s response to suspend the referees. It may sound like proper vindication for some, justifying their crucifixion of the officials in the endgame, a proper compensation for the aggravation of their favorite team taking a loss.

But when you check the PBA standings, the loss is still there, like a glaring scar.

Not Enough Challenges

When the PBA introduced the coach’s challenge in the preseason, there were originally two challenges, one in the first half, and another in the second half. For some reason, they reduced that to just one challenge when the actual season started, with a possible second challenge if you get the first one right.

Just how many challenges are enough? That depends on the quality of the officiating. If officiating is shady, then there won’t be enough challenges. Remember that a successful challenge means the referees made a wrong call. It was a mistake done by the game officials. Not the players’ fault, or the coach’s fault.

If you have two challenges, you will lose those privileges, even if you are correct. Even if these were the referee’s mistakes. If you use up your challenges, then the referees make a crucial mistake that can cost the game, just like coach Tim Cone of Ginebra was, there is nothing you can do.

Is that unfair? Yes. But then again, referees are only human. There was never a perfectly officiated game, and there will never be.

The solution is more challenges, and in the extreme, there is the off-hand suggestion by former coach Jeff VanGundy – that there should be unlimited challenges, as long as you keep getting it right. Because that means your arguments are valid, and the referees are making mistakes.

Equity vs Entertainment

The suggestion is extreme, and will not even be entertained by the commissioner, or the networks. Games can go as long as three hours long. It would be a scheduling nightmare–but that is the price of making sure we have a fairly officiated game. Mistakes will be done, but it will be corrected within the game–when it still matters.

Will fans put up with this? The safeguard against nuisance challenges is that once a challenge is wrong, you lose the privilege altogether. Thus, there is a warning for coaches to pick their battles wisely, and really make sure that they have a valid case.

Having a finite number of challenges can result in the privilege being abused–I’ve seen it in other games, like the PVL, where some coaches use it to break momentum, like a pseudo-time out.

But again, this is an extreme solution. We need one that will actually see the light of day.

Compromises

The easy solution is to have a finite number of challenges (three or four) but with the precaution that a challenge gone wrong will result in forfeiture of the others.

Another solution is for each team to have a challenge reserved for the last 2 minutes, regardless of what happened with the other prior challenges.

There should also be accountability in calls, and with actual scandals rocking the NBA, there should be safety nets in place for the PBA especially with the rise of online betting. Referees who miss calls should have penalties for habitual errors.

There should also be tracking of records similar to “Chris Paul has never won in a game officiated by Scott Foster” statistics. While that is not conclusive since there are many factors in winning or losing a game, it is something to note, and it serves as a warning to the referees that this type of trend is being tracked.

Officiating is complicated, and there is no one-step solution, but the process must start.