Toronto - Sacramento controversial game ending call discussion

[KnightofHyrule]

Yeah my bad, really thought this could be a rational discussion. But knowing its all rigged and the rules are wrong I'm at a loss.

Lol im not saying it's rigged like everybody.

...Im also not saying that its NOT rigged....

I don't know where 0.6 is from. Also, I don't know where 1.9 is even from, it looked like it took about 2.1 to get the shot off from what I've read elsewhere. And there was a decent amount of gap between the tip and clock start.

Dude its math. TRoss released the ball with 0.5 seconds left on the 2.4s clock. Which means that he shot 1.9s after the clock started. They said that TRoss shot 2.5s after when the clock SHOULD'VE started. Which means the clock should've started 0.6s earlier

2.5 - 1.9 = 0.6

[bondom34]

...Im also not saying that its NOT rigged....

Spoiler:

Dude its math. TRoss released the ball with 0.5 seconds left on the 2.4s clock. Which means that he shot 1.9s after the clock started. They said that TRoss shot 2.5s after when the clock SHOULD'VE started. Which means the clock should've started 0.6s earlier

2.5 - 1.9 = 0.6

I thought it was closer to 0, but again I said a few times I'm just going by the replay center. I trust them.

[Rapcity_11]

They said it took TRoss 2.5 to shoot, but according to the bad clock, TRoss shot after 1.9s elapsed. This means that the time missing is 0.6s.

Which to me it looked like a good bit of time elapsed. I didn't time it personally but at that point its up to the replay center. If you want to claim they're a bunch of liars then I guess that's the case you can make. But why the league would screw over Toronto for the sake of the Kings is the greatest mystery to mankind.

Has nothing to do with the "league " screwing over anyone. It has everything to do with individual officials having $$ on the over/under.

Also can you answer me this?
What's to stop home team timekeeper from starting the clock late in any buzzer beater scenario in the future? Thus negating any buzzer beater ever. What a trash precedent to set. Totally against the spirit of competition. I can't believe people are arguing against this. No offense bondom but this is wrong..wrong...wrong.

Refs have the ability to start the clock. And if teams were to do it repeatedly or start it super late on a typical inbounds, it would be very obvious.

[Fico92]

I ain't reading all of these pages to see if it has been suggested already, but can't they review frame by frame (ignoring what the actual late-started clock shows) after the fact to see if Ross released it 2.4 seconds (or whatever it was prior to inbound) after Cousins touched it?

[Winsome Gerbil]

I ain't reading all of these pages to see if it has been suggested already, but can't they review frame by frame (ignoring what the actual late-started clock shows) after the fact to see if Ross released it 2.4 seconds (or whatever it was prior to inbound) after Cousins touched it?

That's actually what they did.

[Fico92]

I ain't reading all of these pages to see if it has been suggested already, but can't they review frame by frame (ignoring what the actual late-started clock shows) after the fact to see if Ross released it 2.4 seconds (or whatever it was prior to inbound) after Cousins touched it?

That's actually what they did.

Oh, ok haha. So, what's the issue then? Are people arguing that something that took longer than 2.4 seconds in actual time should have counted because of the bad reaction time of the clockkeeper?

[Chris Porter's Hair]

I ain't reading all of these pages to see if it has been suggested already, but can't they review frame by frame (ignoring what the actual late-started clock shows) after the fact to see if Ross released it 2.4 seconds (or whatever it was prior to inbound) after Cousins touched it?

That's actually what they did.

Oh, ok haha. So, what's the issue then? Are people arguing that something that took longer than 2.4 seconds in actual time should have counted because of the bad reaction time of the clockkeeper?

I didn't realize we could ask for cliff notes.

Some are. Others, I think more others, are saying that if Ross had any way to KNOW he had less time, he would have shot sooner, so you can't punish him for following the clock available to him, so if the clock is wrong then the least you can do is play it over.

[floppymoose]

The NBA is trolling Canada hard.

[Clutch Carter]

Yeah my bad, really thought this could be a rational discussion. But knowing its all rigged and the rules are wrong I'm at a loss.

It's completely rational, but you keep ignoring the fact that games are officiated by humans, clock start/stoppages aren't precise, never have been and never will be.

There will always be a human margin of error as long as humans control the clock, this has been accepted part of the game... until now.

Per the NBA's statement, 2.5 seconds elapsed instead of 2.4.. a tenth of a second is clearly within the margin of error for a human timekeeper, it's actually quite good, so there's no reason to overturn it and there's certainly no reason to suspect a "clock malfunction".

Your only argument for overturning the bucket is that a tenth of a second is an egregious enough difference to constitute a clock malfunction, which is ludicrous... and even then you'd still be bound to replay the possession.

[bondom34]

Yeah my bad, really thought this could be a rational discussion. But knowing its all rigged and the rules are wrong I'm at a loss.

It's completely rational, but you keep ignoring the fact that games are officiated by humans, clock start/stoppages aren't precise, never have been and never will be.

There will always be a human margin of error as long as humans control the clock, this has been accepted part of the game... until now.

Per the NBA's statement, 2.5 seconds elapsed instead of 2.4.. a tenth of a second is clearly within the margin of error for a human timekeeper, it's actually quite good, so there's no reason to overturn it and there's certainly no reason to suspect a "clock malfunction".

Your only argument for overturning the bucket is that a tenth of a second is an egregious enough difference to constitute a clock malfunction, which is ludicrous... and even then you'd still be bound to replay the possession.

My argument is that its literally the rule. And the reply was its all rigged, which is not rational.

[WCCC]

That's actually what they did.

Oh, ok haha. So, what's the issue then? Are people arguing that something that took longer than 2.4 seconds in actual time should have counted because of the bad reaction time of the clockkeeper?

I didn't realize we could ask for cliff notes.

Some are. Others, I think more others, are saying that if Ross had any way to KNOW he had less time, he would have shot sooner, so you can't punish him for following the clock available to him, so if the clock is wrong then the least you can do is play it over.

I think it can be summarized into these points:

1) NBA said it took 2.5 seconds from when the ball touches DMC's hand to when Ross released the ball based on different angles and their digital timer. Yet, they refuse to release that footage. Some fans timed it to be 2.3, although they might not have timed it properly.

2) There's the argument of whether or not a delayed reaction by the time keeper should be considered a clock malfunction as there's a delayed human reaction on every single inbounds play. Human reaction time is 0.3 while the play in question was delayed by 0.6.

3) The call shouldn't have been made despite the rules do to the fact that every NBA team can now purposely delay the start time of the last possession, giving a false shot clock to the opposing team. The opposing team won't know the real clock time and assume the shot clock is correct.

4) NBA claimed that there was 26.4 seconds left on the game clock and 24 seconds on SAC's shot clock after SAC secured the rebound off a missed FT. SAC then had a 24 second violation, giving the Raptors 2.4 seconds on their last possession. But why did SAC have 24 seconds on their shot clock AFTER they secured the rebound and called time out? Shouldn't have some time been shaved off their clock or does everyone suddenly have an inhuman reaction time?

[Clutch Carter]

Yeah my bad, really thought this could be a rational discussion. But knowing its all rigged and the rules are wrong I'm at a loss.

It's completely rational, but you keep ignoring the fact that games are officiated by humans, clock start/stoppages aren't precise, never have been and never will be.

There will always be a human margin of error as long as humans control the clock, this has been accepted part of the game... until now.

Per the NBA's statement, 2.5 seconds elapsed instead of 2.4.. a tenth of a second is clearly within the margin of error for a human timekeeper, it's actually quite good, so there's no reason to overturn it and there's certainly no reason to suspect a "clock malfunction".

Your only argument for overturning the bucket is that a tenth of a second is an egregious enough difference to constitute a clock malfunction, which is ludicrous... and even then you'd still be bound to replay the possession.

My argument is that its literally the rule. And the reply was its all rigged, which is not rational.

Except the rules got interpreted differently last night. That's why the entire NBA world is making a stink about it.

[Roscoe Sheed]

Wrong call by refs here. As stated earlier, maybe Ross would have shot it earlier if the clock was accurate. Shameful call

[bondom34]

It's completely rational, but you keep ignoring the fact that games are officiated by humans, clock start/stoppages aren't precise, never have been and never will be.

There will always be a human margin of error as long as humans control the clock, this has been accepted part of the game... until now.

Per the NBA's statement, 2.5 seconds elapsed instead of 2.4.. a tenth of a second is clearly within the margin of error for a human timekeeper, it's actually quite good, so there's no reason to overturn it and there's certainly no reason to suspect a "clock malfunction".

Your only argument for overturning the bucket is that a tenth of a second is an egregious enough difference to constitute a clock malfunction, which is ludicrous... and even then you'd still be bound to replay the possession.

My argument is that its literally the rule. And the reply was its all rigged, which is not rational.

Except the rules got interpreted differently last night. That's why the entire NBA world is making a stink about it.

It wasn't. The exac tsame call was made earlier this year.

[FaLCo]

Delusion masked by an aura of rationality. This guy is a mod

[Rapcity_11]

My argument is that its literally the rule. And the reply was its all rigged, which is not rational.

Except the rules got interpreted differently last night. That's why the entire NBA world is making a stink about it.

It wasn't. The exac tsame call was made earlier this year.

Not sure why you ignored me earlier (vid doesn't play in Canada), but what happened?

[bondom34]

Except the rules got interpreted differently last night. That's why the entire NBA world is making a stink about it.

It wasn't. The exac tsame call was made earlier this year.

Not sure why you ignored me earlier (vid doesn't play in Canada), but what happened?

Oh sorry, forgot to!

It was a half court shot at the end of the quarter McConnell hit. Was overturned for the same reason.

[Rapcity_11]

It wasn't. The exac tsame call was made earlier this year.

Not sure why you ignored me earlier (vid doesn't play in Canada), but what happened?

Oh sorry, forgot to!

It was a half court shot at the end of the quarter McConnell hit. Was overturned for the same reason.

Ah, ok thanks. Why didn't the clock start on time? And how late did it start?

[bondom34]

Not sure why you ignored me earlier (vid doesn't play in Canada), but what happened?

Oh sorry, forgot to!

It was a half court shot at the end of the quarter McConnell hit. Was overturned for the same reason.

Ah, ok thanks. Why didn't the clock start on time? And how late did it start?

Not sure exactly how late, just watched a few times. It was after a basket, Philly inbounded and he got it to like half court before they started it. It went in clearly w/ the shot off but was over turned.

I'm trying to find another vid of it.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Oh, ok haha. So, what's the issue then? Are people arguing that something that took longer than 2.4 seconds in actual time should have counted because of the bad reaction time of the clockkeeper?

I didn't realize we could ask for cliff notes.

Some are. Others, I think more others, are saying that if Ross had any way to KNOW he had less time, he would have shot sooner, so you can't punish him for following the clock available to him, so if the clock is wrong then the least you can do is play it over.

3) The call shouldn't have been made despite the rules do to the fact that every NBA team can now purposely delay the start time of the last possession, giving a false shot clock to the opposing team. The opposing team won't know the real clock time and assume the shot clock is correct.

I want you to consider the opposite situation for a second.

The home timekeeper here actually made an error that could very easily have cost the home team the game by not catching that Boogie had tipped that ball.

So let's say it did. The refs said, oh well, timekeeper didn't see the tip, so haha, didn't happen!

Well, what's to stop Toronto's timekeeper from just ignoring tipped inbounds passes by road teams coming into Toronto from then on? Hey, if I don't see it, doesn't count right? Or all timekeepers vs. road teams. If I don't see it = it doesn't happen, so hey, look at that pretty girl in the 2nd deck!