Open Thread: How losing a timeout to request a coach’s challenge can alter the outcome of a game
A facet of the rule hindered a Laker opportunity
On Monday night. the Los Angeles Lakers made their final stand and eventual exit from the 2024 NBA Playoffs in a Game 5 loss that came down to the wire.
At the 3:04 mark, Anthony Davis blocked Nikola Jokic at the basket. Initially called a foul, Davis pleaded with Darvin Ham to challenge. Ham, still reeling from his decision not to invole his challenge in Game 4 (much to the chagrin of an animated LeBron James) acquiesced and did turn on the green light.
The foul was overturned, being labeled a block, and imminent possession gave the ball to the Lakers.
The problem was, even in winning the coach’s challenge, the Lakers lost their final time out.
The coach’s challenge, originally initiated in 2019, allowed a coach to challenge the ruling of a call, leading to a review, and then either sustaining the call or overturning the call.
In July 2023, the NBA’s Board of Governors approved a rule change to give coaches a second challenge if their first one is successful.
If the first challenge is successful, the team retains their time out. However, upon a second challenge (contingent on the first being successful), the time out is lost.
This is what happened to the Lakers, leaving them with no timeouts for the final three minutes.
In the final seconds, when Jamal Murray hit what became the game winning shot, the Lakers had 3.6 seconds. With no timeouts left, they had to go the length of the court and get off a desperation shot.
Had the Lakers been able to retain their timeout with the successful challenge, as is the case on a first challenge, Darvin Ham could have called a timeout, drawn up a play, and used the 3.6 second to tie the game or win with a three-point shot.
Charles Barkley stated that winning the challenge but losing the timeout “doesn’t make sense…that doesn’t seem fair to me.” Kenny Smith agreed stating “You (the refs) made the mistake, not us (the challenger).” Barkley added, “You made a mistake and I got screwed by your mistake.
On ESPN’s Get Up, Jay Williams echoed the sentiment sharing, “I think it’s a crappy rule, that when you challenge a play you lose a time out. Especially, if your challenge is deemed successful…it’s a microcosm of a bigger thing.”
On the one hand, there could be no challenge at all. On the other, they can continue refining the challenge process to best fit the truest outcome of the game.
Considering all the discrepancies seen in those last two-minute reports, calls could honestly be scrutinized over the entirety of the game. That level of oversight would ensure to a greater accuracy that games are correctly, but would anyone want to watch?
Welcome to the Thread. Join in the conversation, start your own discussion, and share your thoughts. This is the Spurs community, your Spurs community. Thanks for being here.
Our community guidelines apply which should remind everyone to be cool, avoid personal attacks, not to troll and to watch the language.
