Another replay? Victory could be protested...

[High 5]

Officials make terrible calls all the time and I have never seen one overturned after a game. If we have to replay it (which I doubt), I don't mind. We always start out fast against the Raptors, they have to wait for their shooters to get hot.

[D21]

NBA should just allow a catch and shoot no matter what with 1 second or less left on the clock. It may not be precise from a scientific standpoint but it averts these kinds of mishaps and controversies.

I disagree because it's so easy to know exactly the time.

When a game is so closed, they should watch a replay of the previous shot to know exactly how many seconds or tenth are left. They have lots of angles to see exactly. Just need a timecode. Then on the last action, you count the time between the catch and the release with the replay again, and that's all. You don't have to watch this stupid red light.

Maybe Ford made his shot in 0.4, maybe in 0.5 or 0.6, but there would have been no problem if they have put the right time on the Bibby's shot because there was more than 0.5s left.
It is hard to say that as a Hawks fan, but it's true.

[betta1]

-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree because it's so easy to know exactly the time.

When a game is so closed, they should watch a replay of the previous shot to know exactly how many seconds or tenth are left. They have lots of angles to see exactly. Just need a timecode. Then on the last action, you count the time between the catch and the release with the replay again, and that's all. You don't have to watch this stupid red light.

Okay, but then you still have the .1 seconds lost/gained depending on when the ref presses the button after determining the ball is in play. Just way too much room for error. It can never be really precise.

[Sultanofatl]

www.ajc.com

Al says he tipped it.

[99 Problems]

-= original quote snipped =-



Okay, but then you still have the .1 seconds lost/gained depending on when the ref presses the button after determining the ball is in play. Just way too much room for error. It can never be really precise.

I was thinking about this.. there will always be a margin of error when we're talking about tenths of seconds, because the people in charge of the clocks are human.. thats just a fact...

This might sound far-fetched but in the near future I would like to see the league make some of these things automated... like somehow rig the ball to start the clock itself when it touches a players hand after an inbounds pass.. and have the entire floor linked to a computer along with the ball and the net.. so the computer could rule if it was good, and other stuff like stepping out of bounds or even travelling... of course human refs could overrule stuff...

Yeah that sounds crazy, I know... but with improving computer technology you never know...

[betta1]

Yeah that would be the other way to look towards improving the situation, instead through technology. I, for one, am not a big fan of incorporating too much high tech or gimmicks into the game as it removes some of the pureness and fun IMHO. Also, I think you then also leave the door open for tech glitches and thus a new set of problems. Anyway, it's all hypothetical and the rules will likely stay the same for a good while.

[disc0]

http://www.ajc.com/hawks/content/sports/hawks/stories/2008/04/03/horfordburst_0403.html

Horford, stated that the clock started when he tipped the inbound pass.

I guess this would sort of put an end to this nonsense.

It's quite clear you can see Horford finger nail tipping the ball as it sailed right over his hand which deflected the ball perfectly into TJ's waiting hands.

[disc0]

-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree because it's so easy to know exactly the time.

When a game is so closed, they should watch a replay of the previous shot to know exactly how many seconds or tenth are left. They have lots of angles to see exactly. Just need a timecode. Then on the last action, you count the time between the catch and the release with the replay again, and that's all. You don't have to watch this stupid red light.

Maybe Ford made his shot in 0.4, maybe in 0.5 or 0.6, but there would have been no problem if they have put the right time on the Bibby's shot because there was more than 0.5s left.
It is hard to say that as a Hawks fan, but it's true.

Thank You!!

I truly believe the raps are going to get stung AGAIN and by Atlanta AGAIN. I can live with that, since it is due to human error and we should have played harder in the final stretch to shut you guys down.

But when there are 2 bad consecutive calls/plays that decide the final outcome of game, it's just mind boggling. The ref on the floor said it was good, then they go to video replay and say it's no good. Before that they started the clock early and before that Mike Bibby's 3 to stop the clock was reduced.

We should have had more time.

[JN]

Swing and a miss by Horford.... so much for that theory, Horford must have felt the wind as his was swatting into nothingness.

Apparebtly he can't tell the difference between air, a basketball, or TJ Ford's head.

[killbuckner]

Last time it was a blatant screw up by the scorers where they had time to fix the problem and chose not to. I thought to was completely fair to replay the game. This is completely different- this was a mistake made in a split second by a ref. No way would they overturn this one

[YogiStewart]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b124/brotha2thanite/S6300012.jpg

Proof the clock did not start early. TJ ford clearly has the ball in his hands and the clock hasn't started.

that's weird. the clock on my tv said it was 9:14.

oh wait...that's the time outside. my bad,.

[D21]

Okay, but then you still have the .1 seconds lost/gained depending on when the ref presses the button after determining the ball is in play. Just way too much room for error. It can never be really precise.

There should be a rule saying if the clock is stopped when the ball past the rim, or the net,... and if you look a replay of the shot, you see how many seconds are remaining, .1s over or under. OK it'is not the right time, but it'"s better than starting the following action with a clock at .5s while the shot of Bibby past the net at .9s .Watching 100 times the replay of the last action of Ford to see if he release the ball before the red light is just totaly stupid.
First you watch Bibby's shot, and you decide to put .8 or .9. Then you watch the replay of Ford action, and you count the number of images from the catch to the release.

But this thing has to be made every game.
That was the same thing for Fisher's shot. Duncan's shot was above the rim at .9 and under the net at .7 so Fisher had more than .4 to shoot.
This is this clock which is important, not the last one. Because giving him the winning shot with .8 or .7 can be a good decision. But giving him the shot for having release before the red light while starting at .4 is just ridiculous. .4s is like 13 frames in NTSC, and even if you take .4s being .44 (assuming .4 clock is between .44 and .35), you get 14 or 15 frames. And Fisher used more than 15 frames to release his shot, he was more around 20.
As 20 frames is .66s, if the clock had been stopped exactly on the Duncan shot, Fisher shot was good. But it doesn't have to be good because of a release before the red light. It's good for the 24s rule... but certainly not for the end of a game.

NBA uses video replays, but doesn't use it right. That's why we see stupid decisions like that.

[smabie]

What is being ignored is the .3 second reaction time to both start and stop the clock.

Sure, on any given basket, there's a ~.3 second runoff before the clock stops. That's the human reaction time to the ball going through the basket.

But then on startup, there's another ~.3 second buffer from when the ball is touched to when the clock starts up again.

So, in the specific example of the other night:

0.7 - Bibby's shot goes in.
0.5 - clock stops (.2 reaction time) ("real" time: 0.7)
0.5 - ball is grazed by Horford when being thrown in ("real" time: 0.7)
0.5 - clock starts .2-.3 seconds later (human reaction time, again) ("real" time: 0.5)
0.4 - Ford catches the ball behind and low, .3-.4 seconds after it was originally thrown in and tipped by Horford. ("real" time: 0.4)
0.0 - The ball is still touching Ford's hand. ("real" time: 0.0)

So yes, you lose time on the delay to stop the clock; but you also lose time on the delay to re-start the clock as well. And if one were to add in the time lost from the Bibby shot, then one would also have to deduct the time gained from between Horford touching the ball and the clock actually starting -- especially since even the Raptors' fans themselves are agreeing that the ball from Horford to Ford would have taken much longer than just .1 seconds.

(And, for the record, I thought Horford had touched the ball during the live play as it was happening, based in part on where the pass was placed and how slow the pass seemed to travel across the court, not to mention that it looked like he might have touched it. There's too short and too obstructed of a view to see if the ball's trajectory or rotation were affected on the camera angles I've seen, but it didn't seem like a "good" pass.)

[The_Floydian]

The biggest part of this "clock started early" garbage that Toronto fans conveniently ignore is that the clock doesn't show hundredths of a second. It could very easily have been at exactly .500, in which case, the instant the ref hit the button, it would have showed .4, even though it was really .49999. There's no way to tell, and you can't expect the referee to start the clock at the EXACT instant he touches the ball. Plus, it wouldn't have even mattered if they hadn't choked away a 17-point lead.

Close the game out next time and quit whining. Jesus, it's been 2 days.