Share this:

John Calipari would like to be able to challenge calls, non-calls late in games

Challenging calls or non-calls late in game would make John Calipari happy. (Jeff Houchin Photo)

By LARRY VAUGHT

Kentucky coach John Calipari likes the recent rule change that resets the shot clock to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound.

But he also thinks there shoule be “challenged calls” by officials late in games.

“You should be able to challenge a call, a made call or a non-made call,” Calipari said. “I challenge that They go to the monitor and look at it. ‘Oh, it will extend the game.’ Are we worried about time or getting it right – who wins, who loses? Wouldn’t you want to get it right? ‘Well, we’ve never done that. Why do you talk and do things that’ve never …’ Well, how do you make it better? You make it so the call is right.”

How can you not agree? Isn’t getting the call right what matters to help determine who wins and loses?

Calipari hopes the rule moving the 3-point shot back  just over a foot will open the lane and create more spacing on the court. It also will make the collegiate 3-point line the same as the one used in international play.

But he would be a lot happier if he could challenge calls and non-calls late in game.

“I don’t know exactly how you would do a non-call, when you would stop it, how far back. If you were looking at a call, could you evaluate other things within the call? This happened before, maybe four seconds before, eight seconds. I don’t know,” the Kentucky coach said.

“Maybe, it’s just that thing we’re looking at. You challenge and don’t get it, it’s a timeout.”

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Since we have fans who consider the winning of the Big Dance as the only measure of a successful season, I would be for a coach’s challenge rule for the last 4 minutes of tournament games ONLY. It would help spotlight guys like Higgins on national TV.

  2. I don’t see this happening. It takes away control from conferences that don’t want one dominant team. Yes, there is too much money at stake to let the kids determine the outcome in a straight up game. Its the same for the Big Dance. The NCAA wants to influence who advances and who doesn’t. Unfortunately, we get the short end of the stick in both arenas.

  3. I am all for these type of challenges, and if it were to ever become part of the game, it would have to have real consequences, both on coaches who abuse the process with bogus challenges and officials who get it wrong all too often.

    For example, if a coach does not prevail, the timeout charge makes sense for the first such occurrence in a game, but if it occurs a second time by the same coach, he leaves the bench for the balance of the game.

    For example, if an official misses the call the first time, the call is corrected, but if the same official misses it a second time in the same game, he is fined (heavily) and when it happens to the same official in a second game, a suspension occurs.

    I offer these as examples of how such a system might be structured, not as an advocate for any specific measures.

    The college game must move toward full time, salaried officials, and move away from the conference based system that has nearly ruined this game over the decades.

  4. Good idea Coach, but it has to be structured right, like the Professor outlines. I can see where these challenges could be abused big time.

Leave a Reply