Upon further review...

If you watched the second and third games of the Finals, you know the prominent role the NBA's new replay review rules, which allow officials to review certain calls in the final two minutes of games, have played. In Game 2, an out-of-bounds call in Boston's favor was controversially upheld. Last night, in Game 3, three similar calls were reviewed, with the stripes twice ruling for Boston and once for LA.

Two problems with the replay system were revealed, or re-enforced, last night.

The first problem comes from the officials being able to review only certain types of calls. Down five with less than a minute to go, Paul Pierce missed a free throw. Lamar Odom went up for the rebound with Rajon Rondo, and the ball appeared to go off Odom's hand and out of bounds. The officials gave the ball to L.A. before heading to the monitor.

Replays clearly showed the ball going off Odom. But the replay also showed, just as clearly, Rondo grabbing Odom's wrist, forcing the big man to lose the ball out of bounds. The rules allow the refs to change an out-of-bounds call using replay, but not a foul call. The officials therefore had no choice but to award the ball to Boston.

What's so wrong with that, given that the ball was out on LA? A couple of things. First of all, there's something wrong with being able to reverse certain calls and not others. I understand that personal fouls require much more subjective judgment than out-of-bounds calls, and that using replay review for such judgments is problematic. But it seems equally problematic, in situations where the uncalled foul is a clear one (as in this case), to allow reversal of one call and not the other.

Secondly, only allowing certain reversals robs officials of the exercise of some discretion. On plays similar to this one, an official will often decide that the contact wasn't enough to warrant a foul call, but enough that it forced the player in Odom's to lose control of the ball. Equitably, then, an official will award the ball to LA. By forcing the officials to the monitor and not giving them the power to retroactively call the foul, the officials had no choice but to give the ball back to Boston. An alternative -- calling every single foul in that situation -- is not desirable; like in all professional sports these days, there's too much bending of the rules by the players to call it by the book.

The second major problem exposed last night came on the first replay review of the evening. Kevin Garnett had the ball in the post, and a Laker -- I don't remember which one -- came down and swiped the ball away. It went out of bounds, and the ball was awarded back to Boston. Upon review, it appeared that Garnett's hand was the last one on the ball before it went out of bounds, and the officials reversed the call.

I watch a ton of basketball, and this marked the first time in my life that I have seen a strip called this way. And yet it's not a unique way for a play like that to unfold. I can't give exact percentages or anything like that, but it often happens that a defender doesn't knock the ball cleanly away, as occurred here. Think about it: If the offensive player is holding the ball with his hands on either side of the ball (as KG was) and the defender slaps down on it, it will almost always roll down the sides of the offensive player's palm and onto the floor. The defender's contact with the basketball lasts merely for an instant; the offensive player remains in contact with the leather for a bit longer.

And yet in live action, this play is always -- not sometimes, not usually, not almost always -- called the way it was originally called: ball back to the offense. Why? Because it all happens too quickly for the naked eye. Only with the innovation of slow-motion can you see what's happened.

I've run this argument by a few others, and most of them make the same argument back to me: The point of the rule is for the refs to get it right, they got it right in this spot, so who cares? My contention is that a call is not "right" if the use of replay fundamentally changes the way the call is made. It's worth noting that the officials didn't immediately order a replay review; that came only after Boston called timeout and the Lakers asked the refs to look at it again. And that, I submit again, is because this play is never called this way. KG didn't stab for it and knock it out of bounds, and he didn't juggle it. It was a routine strip. I've seen someone strip the ball and knock it off the offensive player's leg or foot, but I've never seen someone strip the ball off of someone else's hand. But that's the call the officials made here.

I have little by way of a solution, other than to just junk the whole system altogether. Perhaps some of these problems would be eliminated if the refs could not use slow motion during review. The replay, at full speed, from perhaps different angles, would give them a chance to overturn a call they missed, but it would not allow them to fundamentally change the way the game is officiated the way slow motion replay does. Failing this or some other modification, however, I think the NBA would be best served by scrapping this type of review.