<
>

Rick Carlisle sees both sides of replay use on interference

4/16/2012

SALT LAKE CITY -- Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle believes the replay from Sunday's controversial basket interference no-call conclusively shows that Lakers guard Matt Barnes touched Pau Gasol's overtime 3-point shot as the ball swished through the basket.

Had the play been eligible for review under league rules and found to be conclusive, the three points would have been taken off the board and Dallas would have retained a 101-100 lead with 3:49 to go.

Immediately after Sunday's 112-108 loss to the Lakers, Mavs owner Mark Cuban emailed the league and lobbied for a rule change that would make basket interference situations in the final two minutes of regulation and overtime reviewable by replay.

Yet, Carlisle, who is the president of the NBA coaches' association and also serves on the instant replay committee, said he isn't so sure that replay is in the best interest of the game in such situations.

"It’s something that certainly has come up. The problem with it is that frequently even with multiple camera angles you can’t tell if there is goaltend or a basket interference," Carlisle said. "In the case of (Sunday), if you get the right angle it’s pretty obvious that the ball was touched. Sometimes they miss calls and that’s just the way it goes. But going forward, I know this, the league is very proactive in listening to those kind of suggestions. Over the last six years the coaches association has presented a list of possible suggestions each year and in cooporation with the league and the coaches we’ve gotten seven or eight rules altered or tweaked to make the game better.

"I know that going forward it's something that they will certainly consider if it’s the right thing for the game."

Carlisle said disrupting the flow of the game and other factors involving the use of replay is taken into strong consideration when discussing what should and should not be eligible for review.

"Getting the call right is always going to be a priority as long as you don’t have too many variables and too many moving parts," Carlisle said. "If you have to get in situations where you have to stop the clock and then reconstruct the game and go backwards, you can’t do those kinds of things. The league puts a lot of thought into it, the committee talks a lot about those situations. As to whether the benefit outweigh the potential dicey situation.

"But things like (Sunday) are things that polarize the conversation and they get the league talking about it and owners talking about it. Again, I just think, going forward it's something that the league will listen to and consider."