Kleeman's Jumphook: Should The NBA Expand Use Of Instant Replay?

How long is too long? At what number of hours would you stop watching an NBA game?

Is one mistake worth several minutes of silence?

David Stern and his administration must consider these questions each time someone suggests an increased use of instant replay. Believe me, after these playoffs, a lot of people will want the NBA to review more plays than it does.

Several regular season end-of-game situations involving the San Antonio Spurs first sparked my interest in this topic.

Late in a Sunday evening contest at New Orleans, the Spurs trailed the Hornets by a point after Manu Ginobili and Michael Finley had drained consecutive threes.

They had missed 22 three-pointers and blown another stranglehold on a key road tilt. Still, they were perhaps one intentional foul away from a chance to tie the affair.

With less than 10 seconds left, James Posey threw in the ball to Chris Paul, who was immediately fouled by Tony Parker.

The refs missed the obvious hack, and the Spurs were forced to chase the speedy Paul the length of the court. Ginobili caught the Wake Forest product behind the arc and hacked him again.

Paul heaved the ball at the rim just as Ginobili fouled him. The refs whistled a three-shot foul, and that was that.

Then, after Paul sank all three free throws, the referees missed a several second, obvious clock malfunction.

The Spurs could only scream about those lost 2.6 seconds and the foul that wasn't called. The officials were not allowed to review either mishap.

Had crew chief Eddie Rush acknowledged Parker's first foul on Paul, the Hornets guard would have shot two free throws instead of three. Big difference in a tight game.

The Spurs, as they always do, refused to use the officials' errors as excuses and blamed their own faulty execution for the loss.

Then, on the last Sunday of the regular season, perhaps Lady Luck decided to repay the Spurs for the previous incidents.

The dazed victim? The woeful Sacramento Kings.

Michael Finley nailed a three-pointer after the 24-second shot clock expired to lift the Spurs over the Kings 95-92. With 1.2 seconds left, Beno Udrih's prayer skipped off the rim, and a half-full Arco Arena left "fan appreciation night" with the bitter taste of a bad call and an even worse season.

Replays clearly showed that Finley's shot was no good. The ball left his hands nearly one second after the clock had ticked to zero.

Worse for the Kings; the in-arena guy who is supposed to push the red light button to signal a 24-second violation didn't push it.

Again, as per NBA rules, the refs could not review the timing of the play. They could only review whether the shot was a two or three.

The game's outcome meant little to the Kings, who had all but locked up the league's worst record and best chance at the top lottery pick. Still, it must have sickened the fans to see such an inspired effort against a championship contender trampled with a blown call.

The game meant everything to the Spurs, who needed a win to keep home court advantage in the first round and stay in the division title hunt.

Dallas Mavericks fans know what comes next in this brief history lesson. Mark Wunderlich failed to call foul No. 62, even though replays and common sense made it obvious one was committed.

Antoine Wright used the Mavs' foul to give on Carmelo Anthony to prevent a shot. The silence thereafter was deafening.

'Melo won the game with an off-balance, but open three-pointer.

Forget for a second that all three of these situations could have been avoided with better execution by the victimized teams. The Mavericks missed nine free throws in that game three loss and allowed Carmelo Anthony to get a wide-open dunk to make it 105-103.

The Mavericks trailed 2-0 to a team that swept them in the regular season. You could say the Nuggets were going to spank them in five or six games, even if Wunderlich had blown his whistle.

Still, how long before an egregious no-call of the above variety smacks a team in the NBA Finals?

Isn't an official's primary job to get every call right to the best of his ability? Isn't it obvious after review that these conspicuous no-calls impacted the games in the wrong way?

As per NBA rules, an official can review a three-pointer if a player's feet were close to the line. An official can also review any on-court conflict he or she defines as an altercation and buzzer beaters at the end of quarters.

Should the rules be expanded to allow refs to look at intentional fouls, simple fracases, and shots that come after the 24-second clock, not the game clock, expires?

NBA owners and administrators will no doubt discuss this issue at length during the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations.

The question is; how long is too long?