NBA Introduces More Replay Review Situations, Starts Sliding Down Slippery Slope

Get ready for the deluge: According to USA Today now is when the NBA brings more instant replay into the fold:↵↵⇥Game officials will be able to use instant replay in two cases:
↵⇥
↵⇥• At any time to determine whether a field goal was properly awarded two or three points and to determine the correct number of free throws on a missed two- or three-point field goal.
↵⇥
↵⇥• If the game clock malfunctions during a play ending with no time left at the end of a quarter or overtime.↵↵Nothing too evil here. We should be able to determine, once and for all, if it’s a two or a three. And unlike almost every play subjected to the NFL’s time-gobbling contemplation, there are clear answers here. The clock failure thing seems like a no-brainer. Time determines what is or isn’t permissible, and without it, the game doesn’t exist in any real way. Is that deep enough for you?↵
↵
↵

The real threat here would be if this turned into some kind of slippery slope, one that lead all the way to foul calls. Instant replay is a bummer when it starts taking on matters that will never offer up absolute clarity. The challenge is stupid exactly because it takes one instance of human imperfection and, despite all the fancy camera angles, introduces yet another chance for people to screw it up. There are exceptions: A face-mask, or in the NBA, if someone got blatantly hacked and it was ignored. But for heck’s sake, sports have so many shades of gray. In an almost mystical way, it’s best to figure that in the long run, karma will sort itself out. At least in cases where there’s not a black/white distinction to draw.↵
↵
↵So tread carefully, NBA. When you end up with gamesmanship entering the picture, and a second verdict no more objective than the first, replay has offically shot itself in the foot. For now, the Association’s not there. But since the heart and soul of griping in this sport is foul calls, it would be wise to avoid even letting this most subjective, frequently flawed, and in some sense, utterly unknowable rule enforcement come under too much scrutiny. Unfair? Fatalistic? Maybe. But the alternative is like trying to get dogs and cats to unionize.↵