Under the rules of the game, a replay should be ruled out because a referee’s judgment call–bad or good–can never be reversed. That’s the basic law, whether you like it or not. Imagine the chaos if for every judgment call that is debatable, coaches will argue for a reversal. It’s a time-honored rule that "el fallo del juez es inapelable" (the decision of the referee is unappealable."
The twist is a referee is only human, meaning he isn’t perfect. A referee makes mistakes, too. That’s the rub. However, there’s an exception to the rule. A referee’s decision may be overturned or overruled when a technicality is involved and leads to a wrong judgment call.
In last Friday’s game, the referees ruled that Asi Taulava’s tip-in of a desperation lob from Jimmy Alapag–an unscripted version of an alley-oop–came with no time left in the first overtime. The referees didn’t bother to consult the TV replay of the sequence even if the Big Dome’s giant screens showed it glaringly. It would’ve been irregular, if not improper, for the referees to base a decision on a replay shown on the jumbo screens.
In the National Basketball Association (NBA) this season, league officials introduced the use of instant replay to review last-second plays at the end of each quarter and overtime. A TV monitor is provided on the officials’ courtside table for the referees to view a play. The giant screens in the stadium are not used by the referees to base a decision. In the PBA, there is no such "instant replay" provision in the rulebook. Besides, there is no TV monitor which the referees may look at on the officials’ courtside table.
Last Friday, the referees decided among themselves that Taulava’s shot wouldn’t count. The problem is everyone watching TV saw the shot was taken within time, thanks to instant replay. It was, in fact, a bad judgment call. The referees made a clear mistake.
Talk ‘N’ Text’s decision to protest the game was, therefore, justified. The Phone Pals had every reason to complain.
In an NBA game between New York and Chicago on Jan. 15, 1990, Knicks guard Trent Tucker took an inbounds pass from Mark Jackson and lofted a high-looping 25-foot prayer with one-tenths of a second on the clock. Tucker buried the triple and the referees counted it to give New York a 109-106 win.
Bulls coach Phil Jackson protested the decision to count the basket because "you can’t get a shot off in one-tenths of a second (when) Tucker’s shot was a one or two-second shot." It wasn’t a catch-and-shoot situation. The TV replay proved Jackson’s point as Tucker released the ball after time had run out.
But NBA Commissioner David Stern stood by the referee’s bad judgment. "The NBA has consistently denied protests on errors in judgment by game officials," said Stern. "The question before me is not whether Tucker received Jackson’s pass and released his shot within one-tenths of a second–plainly, he did not."
Although it was an unpopular decision, Stern ruled out Jackson’s protest.
Sports columnist Craig Neff took Stern to task for the decision. "Stern, who’s a lawyer, should not have felt as bound by the letter of the NBA law," wrote Neff. "He’s the boss. When faced with an obvious injustice, he should correct it, not throw up his hands and say, ‘sorry, guys, I’m powerless.’"
Sports Illustrated (Feb. 12, 1990) said: "Under league rules, the NBA Commissioner can uphold a protest only in cases in which a playing rule has been violated or misapplied. At the Bulls-Knicks game, Stern pointed out with legalistic exactitude, no rules were violated."
If a protest is upheld in the NBA, the game is replayed only from the point of issue. The policy is not to replay a game from the start.
Take, for instance, the New Jersey-Philadelphia game on Nov. 8, 1978. The Sixers won, 137-133, in overtime. Nets coach Kevin Loughery protested the contest because with 5:50 to go in the third period, referee Richie Powers slapped three technical fouls on New Jersey forward Bernard King. Loughery argued that calling three Ts was illegal.
The NBA upheld Loughery’s protest and ordered a replay starting with 5:50 to go in the third quarter. The quirk was the replay was held on March 23, 1979 and by then, both teams had traded four players to each other. So in the replay, Eric Money and Al Skinner played for the 76ers and Harvey Catchings and Ralph Simpson for the Nets. In the original game, the four players saw action for the opposing teams.
The replay was ordered because a technicality was involved. Powers was reprimanded and fined heavily by the league.
Another example is from the Continental Basketball Association (CBA). Birmingham beat La Crosse, 113-112, on Dec. 17, 1991. But the Catbirds protested the outcome, claiming that with 1:13 left in the contest, the referees erred in calling a defensive foul and awarding Birmingham two free throws. Birmingham’s Anthony Houston hit two charities to make it 113-110. La Crosse coach Flip Saunders, now calling the shots for the Minnesota Timberwolves, argued that there was never a change of possession and the call should have been an offensive foul with no free throws awarded. The CBA upheld Saunders’ protest on the basis of a technicality and ordered a replay of the last 91 seconds on Feb. 21, 1992.
In the PBA, a replay was ordered of a protested game between Purefoods and Shell that was held at the PhilSports Arena, then known as the ULTRA, on March 17, 1991. Referee Genaro Ledesma made a mistake in counting Purefoods import Richard Hollis’ jumper with no time left. Because Ledesma counted the basket, Purefoods won, 124-123.
The reality was Hollis’ basket came after time had run out.
Then-PBA Commissioner Rudy Salud’s options were to nullify the shot and award the win to Shell or to recognize Purefoods’ win or to order a replay.
"Logic alone may dictate that if the shot was not counted, then Shell won the game," said Salud. "However, to my mind, even logic must be applied within existing rules."
Salud reasoned that a technical error led to Ledesma’s judgment. He said more time actually elapsed than the one second remaining on the clock when Hollis took his shot. "This constituted a technical error," he said. "A technical error occurred during the dying seconds of the game which altered the outcome of the game."
So unlike Stern in the Chicago-New York controversy, Salud ordered a replay–from the top.
In the Ginebra-Talk ‘N’ Text game, there was an obvious injustice. Taulava’s shot should’ve counted. But if Stern sat on the hot seat and not Eala, he’d back up the referees’ decision and uphold Ginebra’s win. That’s because it was a judgment call not based on a technical error. In the Hollis case, the shot came after the buzzer. In Taulava’s case, the shot came before the buzzer. So strictly speaking, it was a judgment call that should be upheld, right or wrong.
But Eala isn’t Stern. He will not go strictly by the book and like Salud, will apply logic "within existing rules."
Because Taulava’s shot should’ve counted, it’s inevitable that Eala will order a replay. It’s a Solomonic solution because a replay will not reverse the referees’ decision but will give an opportunity for both teams to settle the issue on another day. A reversal will mean awarding the win to Talk ‘N’ Text outright.
If a replay is ordered, it should be done immediately and not at the end of the double round eliminations. Perhaps, the PBA could donate the proceeds of the game to charity or open the general admission and lower box, free to the public.
Romel Adducul didn’t play last Friday because he attended his graduation rites. In a replay, he should be allowed to suit up, following the New Jersey-Philadelphia precedent in the NBA. In the same token, Talk ‘N’ Text should be allowed to play Noli Locsin who didn’t see action last Friday.
In the future, the PBA must adopt a consult-the-replay rule and apply it like the NBA. At present, the PBA allows the correction of a three-point shot only up to the last five minutes of a game. There is no provision to consult the instant replay for last-second shots at the end of each quarter.