PDA

View Full Version : Fisher's shot should not have counted.



Unclebuck
05-13-2004, 10:58 PM
Yes I know he got the shot off before the light came on.

But there is no way a player can catch the ball turn and shoot in .4 of a second. No way. The clock started late.

I have seen numerous situations with .6, .5, or .4 when a player has shot it quicker than Fisher did and they wave it off.

I say this not as a Spurs fan and not as a Laker hater because I am neither.

But I don't think that shot should have counted.

Shade
05-13-2004, 11:00 PM
Yes I know he got the shot off before the light came on.

But there is no way a player can catch the ball turn and shoot in .4 of a second. No way. The clock started late.

I have seen numerous situations with .6, .5, or .4 when a player has shot it quicker than Fisher did and they wave it off.

I say this not as a Spurs fan and not as a Laker hater because I am neither.

But I don't think that shot should have counted.

Yeah, 0.4 is not really enough time to get off a shot, unless it's an instant catch-and-shoot. But God forbid the NBA lets logic and physics get in the way of good ratings. :unimpressed:

zxc
05-13-2004, 11:01 PM
Yeah neither do I. Was clear as day the clock didn't start right away. There is no way he can get a shot like that off in .4 seconds. Sure didn't take the refs long to confirm it was good on the replay though would think they would put some thought into that and notice it, though maybe they can't do anything about that. Makes me remember that JO shot last year had to deal with like 30 minutes of review for regular season game.

ROCislandWarrior
05-13-2004, 11:02 PM
I agree with you, but who's fault is it that the clock did not start the exact moment the ball hit Fisher's hand?

Stryder
05-13-2004, 11:02 PM
You guys need to get a grip and stop the bellyaching and b*tching.

The Lakers won fair and square on a lucky shot. End of story.

Southside_Pacer
05-13-2004, 11:03 PM
00.3 or less you can't, 00.4 and greater technically you can.

Regardless, that was one hell of a shot.

BostonConnection
05-13-2004, 11:03 PM
Well, since ESPN and ABC will probably show the shot about a million times over the next week we'll have plenty of opportunities to review it - over and over and over and... :rolleyes:

sweabs
05-13-2004, 11:03 PM
Man that sure was something though...WOW...I am still in shock.

And even more - WHAT ABOUT DUNCAN'S SHOT!!! :o :o
Now that was tough.

Shade
05-13-2004, 11:04 PM
00.3 or less you can't, 00.4 and greater technically you can.

Regardless, that was one hell of a shot.

Not that shot. 0.4 is the quickest it's humanly possible to get a shot off. It doesn't mean you do.

ROCislandWarrior
05-13-2004, 11:04 PM
Well, since ESPN and ABC will probably show the shot about a million times over the next week we'll have plenty of opportunities to review it - over and over and over and... :rolleyes:

and over and over and again and again and over and over and over... :devil:

Shade
05-13-2004, 11:05 PM
Man that sure was something though...WOW...I am still in shock.

And even more - WHAT ABOUT DUNCAN'S SHOT!!! :o :o
Now that was tough.

Why does it surprise you so much? It's not like the Lakers don't do this ALL THE TIME. I would have been shocked if the shot missed.

Southside_Pacer
05-13-2004, 11:05 PM
Everybody must keep in mind these are time keepers from the NBA, not a Spurs person, or a Lakers person.

Point is he made it, it was a hell of a shot, Lakers won, nobody can change it.

sweabs
05-13-2004, 11:06 PM
Man that sure was something though...WOW...I am still in shock.

And even more - WHAT ABOUT DUNCAN'S SHOT!!! :o :o
Now that was tough.

Why does it surprise you so much? It's not like the Lakers don't do this ALL THE TIME. I would have been shocked if the shot missed.

It was surprising because first of all it was Fisher...I was definitely expecting Kobe or the lob to Shaq.
Secondly, 0.4 seconds?!?! Yes, that's surprising.
I wonder if any of the fans started to leave after Duncan's shot... :whoknows:

Shade
05-13-2004, 11:10 PM
Man that sure was something though...WOW...I am still in shock.

And even more - WHAT ABOUT DUNCAN'S SHOT!!! :o :o
Now that was tough.

Why does it surprise you so much? It's not like the Lakers don't do this ALL THE TIME. I would have been shocked if the shot missed.

It was surprising because first of all it was Fisher...I was definitely expecting Kobe or the lob to Shaq.
Secondly, 0.4 seconds?!?! Yes, that's surprising.
I wonder if any of the fans started to leave after Duncan's shot... :whoknows:

Once again, this happens to the Lakers ALL THE TIME. Kobe. Fisher. Horry. Doesn't matter.

Why does the luck always seem to reside with the most sickening/pampered team in all of sports?

BostonConnection
05-13-2004, 11:15 PM
Once again, this happens to the Lakers ALL THE TIME. Kobe. Fisher. Horry. Doesn't matter.

Why does the luck always seem to reside with the most sickening/pampered team in all of sports?

Well, not that it counts for a hill of beans right now for the Spurs, but last season they beat LA in Game 5 of their series when Robert Horry missed his last second shot for LA as a Laker.

http://www.nba.com/games/20030513/LALSAS/recap.html

Unclebuck
05-13-2004, 11:19 PM
It is an impossible situation for the time keeper, because it takes a few tenths of a second to start the clock for the person who is running the clock to react to the ball being impounded.

It will be very interesting to see if a new rule comes out of this like the rule they instituted when Trent Tucker hhit a turnoaround with .10 of a second left.

I could see them saying with .6 or less you cannot turn and shot, you must shot as soon as you get it or something like that

ChicagoJ
05-13-2004, 11:20 PM
Looked legit to me.

Somebody, however, should tell Doc Rivers that that Pacers and Magic once traded gamewinning shots on four straight possessions (the first "Memorial Day Miracle") This was impressive, but it wasn't like it was the best finish ever, or even the best finish Shaq's ever been a part of.

:unimpressed:

Southside_Pacer
05-13-2004, 11:22 PM
HE HITS!!!! HE HITS!!!!!! HE HITS!!!!!!! HE HITS!!!!!!!! HE HITS!!!!!!

Ahh, memories. :)

Shade
05-13-2004, 11:23 PM
Once again, this happens to the Lakers ALL THE TIME. Kobe. Fisher. Horry. Doesn't matter.

Why does the luck always seem to reside with the most sickening/pampered team in all of sports?

Well, not that it counts for a hill of beans right now for the Spurs, but last season they beat LA in Game 5 of their series when Robert Horry missed his last second shot for LA as a Laker.

http://www.nba.com/games/20030513/LALSAS/recap.html

Yeah. ONE TIME. And now he's missing shots for the opposing team instead.

clownskull
05-14-2004, 01:26 AM
yeh i will say that it is very curious how someone can catch then do a turnaround jumper in .4 sec
i would like to see if that could possibly be done. i can only conclude that the clock started late.
oh well, it's in the books now.

Suaveness
05-14-2004, 01:33 AM
I hate the Lakers. They will now win the NBA title. And who's going to stop them? :unimpressed:

Hoop
05-14-2004, 01:54 AM
Just proves my theory right, the Lakers have all sold there souls to the devil. :shakehead: :notlistening: :disappointed:

Hicks
05-14-2004, 04:28 AM
I just got home. I was back visiting with my High School friends tonight since about 7PM, we went to Applebees at around 10:30PM and I saw on the TV the highlites of the game from a distance and was floored. I was crushed to see the Lakers won by a point. I couldn't tell who, but I just saw a Laker hitting a shot at the buzzer. I figured it was Kobe. But Fisher? God damn that team is lucky. They HAVE to have sold their souls to get the kind of luck they've had over the years. Unbelievable.

Well, because I got home so late, I just happened to turn it to ESPN and right now the game is being rebroadcast and as I type it's 5:26 left in the 4th. I'll get to see this thing "live" and make my own judgements, but Fisher having time to grab, turn, and shoot in 0.4 seconds sounds screwy to me.

bulletproof
05-14-2004, 06:16 AM
yeah, i will say that it is very curious how someone can catch then do a turnaround jumper in .4 sec.

Or fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds from the 6th floor of a school depository to kill the president. :unimpressed:

PaceBalls
05-14-2004, 06:58 AM
so whats the verdict? was the clock really off?
the NBA can reverse it if it is overwhelmingly wrong.

Stryder
05-14-2004, 07:50 AM
so whats the verdict? was the clock really off?
the NBA can reverse it if it is overwhelmingly wrong.

The shot was good. End of story.

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2004, 09:19 AM
They were talking about this on Sporting News Radio this morning.

The starting of the clock in the last part of quarters is not in the hands of a timekeeper anymore. A few years back the NBA went to a radio frequency belt worn by one of the referees ON THE COURT. He presses a button and the clock starts. If there was an error, it was by an on-court official.

It also appears that there should have been more than 0.4 seconds on the clock anyway. Check out this frame of Duncan's shot:

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/storage/images/08seconds.jpg

I am bummed that the Lakers won, but there is nothing fishy going on.

Unclebuck
05-14-2004, 09:32 AM
Since I started this thread, let me re-state my position.

I am not saying at all that there is anything fishy going on. Yes I knew the officials start the clock, and there is no doubt the ball left Fisher's hand before the red light came on.

But the NBA deems that .3 of a second comes off the clock on any tip of the ball, so they are saying in .1 of a second more, a player can catch turn and shoot.

The game last night is over, I don't really care that much about that, but I do care about what might happen in the future in these situations.

i think the NBA needs to give some consideration to instituting some uniformity on what can be accomplished in tenths of a second just like they deemed that a player can only tip the ball with .3 or less.

There is to big a gap between being only able to tip the ball at .3, but at .4 you can catch turn and shoot? .1 of a second makes that much difference.

Rules committee needs to look into this

ChicagoJ
05-14-2004, 09:37 AM
They were talking about this on Sporting News Radio this morning.

The starting of the clock in the last part of quarters is not in the hands of a timekeeper anymore. A few years back the NBA went to a radio frequency belt worn by one of the referees ON THE COURT. He presses a button and the clock starts. If there was an error, it was by an on-court official.

It also appears that there should have been more than 0.4 seconds on the clock anyway. Check out this frame of Duncan's shot:

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/storage/images/08seconds.jpg

I am bummed that the Lakers won, but there is nothing fishy going on.

When Turkaglu hit the shot against the Pacers in the SBC Center, I thought, and I could prove with my TiVo, that an additional half-second ticked off the clock after the ball went through the basket.

Turnabout is fair play.

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2004, 09:57 AM
I know you weren't saying there was anything fishy going on, UB, but I'm sure that Spurs fans must be thinking that the NBA would LOVE to have the Lakers advance.

I was just pointing out for those not in the know that the old days of a hometown timekeeper who can alter the outcome of the game by his biases or simply by his incompetence are over, thankfully.

Mr. Pink
05-14-2004, 10:02 AM
The shot was good. And I'm glad in a way because I want a Kings vs. Lakers rematch.


Ohhhh goodness I get chills thinking about these to going head to head again.




Sactolover

TheSauceMaster
05-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Well the Spurs Filed a Complaint , don't think they will get it reversed ...but maybe the league will look at this and adjust the rules. If you look at the screen shot posted of Tim Duncan's shot you will see there should been 0.8 and not 0.4

The Spurs Complaint Article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240513024)

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/storage/images/08seconds.jpg

ChicagoJ
05-14-2004, 10:46 AM
Well the Spurs Filed a Complaint , don't think they will get it reversed ...but maybe the league will look at this and adjust the rules. If you look at the screen shot posted of Tim Duncan's shot you will see there should been 0.8 and not 0.4

The Spurs Complaint Article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=240513024)

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/storage/images/08seconds.jpg


Just like our game in the SBC Center back in January - THIS is what they should be looking at when they review a play. Now, could Fisher have made that shot in 0.8? Absolutely.

This is the same concept as what they missed in the Pacers/ Detroit regular season game last season - what should the clock have read at the beginning of the play?

As you'll recall, the Pistons last shot in that game hit the rim with 25.1 seconds to play. The rebound was cleanly controlled by the Pacers at 24.4. Because, by rule, it takes 0.3 seconds to call timeout, the game clock correctlly showed 24.1 seconds, the shot clock read 24 (its not in tenths) but it really registered 23.7. The shot clock didn't malfunction, although that was the official explanation that allowed us a game-winning shot that probably occured right after a shot-clock violation.

The didn't even review the shot in question in the Pacers/ Spurs game under the pretense that since 0.2 remained on the clock that he clearly hit the shot before time expired. That's bull$#!+. We should have had 0.7. Now I'm getting mad all over again. Sorry.

Shade
05-14-2004, 12:26 PM
The shot was good. And I'm glad in a way because I want a Kings vs. Lakers rematch.


Ohhhh goodness I get chills thinking about these to going head to head again.




Sactolover

Without HCA, the Kings won't beat the Lakers. Hell, the Spurs had HCA and have still managed to choke this series away. :pissed: