RealGM

So i'm sitting here watching the Bos/Cle game, and just now the Celtics called a timeout with 1 second remaining on the shot clock to draw up a play. But when the ball was in bounded, the buzzer rang almost immediately after the ball was touched, much sooner than 1 second (unless the clock keeper started it slightly too soon).

But I was wondering, should the shot clock be able to say something like 2.3 seconds? Or .5 seconds? The game clock has it, and it becomes incredibly important at the end of quarters and games (whether players have time to get a shot off or not). Why not on the shot clock a well? That way a team would know whether it's worth calling a timeout? or whether they need a tip in or a quick catch and shoot?

Now I don't think tenths of a second are needed unless it's under 10 seconds, so it wouldn't need a 3rd number added to the clock. And it could switch as soon as it gets below 10 seconds and give players a better idea of how much time is left.

Just a thought, and don't think it's because i'm a Celtics fan and just saw this...cause I despise the Celtics.

That's a good point and I agree.

Doc Rivers is still a moron for calling a timeout with one second showing on the shot clock.

Yeah, I've always wondered why the NBA leaves crap like that up to such a clumsy shot clock.

They might as well count by 5 if they are going to be counting by full seconds.

There is just no accuracy in it.

Yes! Wondered the same thing too in the same game, same play. The league should tweak this for the next seasons...

"show clock at 9.2 and game clock at 19.5 seconds remaining.."

They should get rid of the shot clock period.

Pancho_Pantera wrote:They should get rid of the shot clock period.

get rid of the game clock. First team to 100 wins.

UCFJayBird wrote:So i'm sitting here watching the Bos/Cle game, and just now the Celtics called a timeout with 1 second remaining on the shot clock to draw up a play. But when the ball was in bounded, the buzzer rang almost immediately after the ball was touched, much sooner than 1 second (unless the clock keeper started it slightly too soon).

But I was wondering, should the shot clock be able to say something like 2.3 seconds? Or .5 seconds? The game clock has it, and it becomes incredibly important at the end of quarters and games (whether players have time to get a shot off or not). Why not on the shot clock a well? That way a team would know whether it's worth calling a timeout? or whether they need a tip in or a quick catch and shoot?

Now I don't think tenths of a second are needed unless it's under 10 seconds, so it wouldn't need a 3rd number added to the clock. And it could switch as soon as it gets below 10 seconds and give players a better idea of how much time is left.

Just a thought, and don't think it's because i'm a Celtics fan and just saw this...cause I despise the Celtics.

I think that is a valid point. Those misleading things are really annoying.

But I don't think a change is necessary right now because it is not such a common problem in the NBA, and it will just clog up the area above the basket and confuse the player trying to read it.

It can be a good thing actually as it speeds up the game, makes defense a more influencing part of the game, and avoids unnecessary drama for shot clock keepers for all those "shot clock violation" clutch players like Marquis Daniel and Chris Bosh.

I think it would be a good idea to change it to show 10ths ONLY if there's a dead ball with under 2 seconds left on the shot clock otherwise there really is no need for the extra precision.

that's a good point. I don't think it would confuse players until under 2 seconds anyway, but they should know the clock is winding down and recognize that it's a 1.8 instead of an 18. Maybe just under dead ball situations.

It's not a critical change needed, as teams have been pretty good at dealing with it in the past and it hasn't resulted in too much controversy, but still a tweak that could be beneficial to both the officials and the players.

This may have cost the Pistons a game in '03.

The Pacers grabbed a rebound and called a timeout with 25 seconds remaining. They did this in slightly less than one second, so their shot clock still read 24.

Jermaine O'Neal scored at the buzzer.

The video replay clearly showed he didn't beat the shot clock, but did beat the game clock. The officials reviewed the video and ruled the shot was good because a full 24.0 hadn't come off the game clock after the ball was inbounded.

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams ... m=Ind#RCPS