ImageImage

[Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot

Moderators: ken6199, TMU

mpsniper101
Banned User
Posts: 605
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 13, 2008

[Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#1 » by mpsniper101 » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:19 pm

Now, I don't want to turn this into anything. I just want to post what Hollinger found. It's not going to really matter since the NBA is not going to do anything about it.
It appeared he had some favorable timekeeping as well, as the clock appeared to start late. Though he had only 0.8 seconds left to shoot, our analysis with replay and a stopwatch indicated that it took him 1.6 seconds to catch the ball, gather it, turn and release the game-winner, and that nearly two seconds passed between the time he caught the ball and the time the buzzer went off.

Perhaps this is all considered normal -- there's bound to be a lag time before the clock operator triggers the start -- but as long-time Portland columnist Dwight Jaynes told me after the game, "I want that guy to time the rest of my life."


If you look at this picture Image

He caught the ball, landed to the ground then squared up and shot it. Now you can't do that with 0.8 seconds unless the clock starts late.. Derek Fisher's shot was a prime example of that, Derek did it all in one motion. I doubt that the NBA can do anything about this, but little things like this happen all the time. It was the Rockets game to lose, they played bad, Portland deserved to win.
mpsniper101
Banned User
Posts: 605
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 13, 2008

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#2 » by mpsniper101 » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:19 pm

I'd also like to add this comment: If you think about it, that was a good foul on Roy. The time would have kept going for Yao and it would have been a 2nd overtime.. Obviously it was bad at the time because he hadn't hit that miracle jumper, but it was a good foul because the clock stopped at 0.8 when the foul was called. If there was no foul, the red lights would have come on and it would have been a tie game. I had no doubt Yao was going to hit it, that wasn't luck. Roy just committed a bad foul but it end up turning into a good foul.
User avatar
HTown_TMac
General Manager
Posts: 9,060
And1: 222
Joined: Oct 08, 2005
Location: Houston, Texas.
   

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#3 » by HTown_TMac » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:21 pm

I think Portland wanted more than us, if T-Mac would have played defense on that last play it would be different.

But a hell of a shot no matter how much time was taking off the clock. We could appeal it I think but we wont.
Image
www.atrilli.net <- music blog
User avatar
MaxRider
RealGM
Posts: 44,473
And1: 5,805
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Location: Choke City
 

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#4 » by MaxRider » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:27 pm

The clock will always start late, it's part of the game you just have to deal with it. Unless someone come up with a technology that will automatic trigger the timer when someone touched the ball. But whoever is the time keeper in last night game should be fire. Cause he did an awful job. Just to name one, like the time started 3-4 seconds late when about 33 seconds left in OT.
User avatar
Iggyemu
RealGM
Posts: 22,376
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Location: Jacksonville

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#5 » by Iggyemu » Fri Nov 7, 2008 9:38 pm

They deserved the win more. Only McGrady and Brooks played well offensively. Only Artest and Hayes played well defensively. The Blazers deserved to win and won.
"One Ring makes a Champion......Six Rings make a Legend" - Michael Jeffrey Jordan
User avatar
moofs
General Manager
Posts: 8,077
And1: 537
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Location: "if the warriors win the title this season ill tattoo their logo in my di ck" -- 000001
Contact:

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#6 » by moofs » Fri Nov 7, 2008 10:31 pm

The team that "deserves" to win is the team that scored more before the clock expired, no more nor less. Just because a team should have played better than it did and then lost doesn't mean the other team "deserved" to win because of it. So if the clock is screwy, well that throws in a wrinkle that makes "deserves" fly right out the window.
Morey 2020.

Q:How are they experts when they're always wrong?
A:Ask a stock market analyst or your financial advisor
User avatar
Iggyemu
RealGM
Posts: 22,376
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Location: Jacksonville

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#7 » by Iggyemu » Fri Nov 7, 2008 10:42 pm

moofs wrote:The team that "deserves" to win is the team that scored more before the clock expired, no more nor less. Just because a team should have played better than it did and then lost doesn't mean the other team "deserved" to win because of it. So if the clock is screwy, well that throws in a wrinkle that makes "deserves" fly right out the window.


Fair enough...

But why complain about things you can't control. Its like complaining about the refs after the fact. You get beat by an average team when you consider yourself a good team b/c the refs made a tough call late in the game or the clock guy screwed us late in the game.....you have to let that go b/c it shouldn't come to that if you consider yourself that much better.
"One Ring makes a Champion......Six Rings make a Legend" - Michael Jeffrey Jordan
User avatar
DreamShook34
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,372
And1: 6
Joined: Oct 19, 2007

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#8 » by DreamShook34 » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:02 pm

HTown_TMac wrote:I think Portland wanted more than us, if T-Mac would have played defense on that last play it would be different.

But a hell of a shot no matter how much time was taking off the clock. We could appeal it I think but we wont.


according the Chron it seemed like a miss communication by Mac and Artest. Mac definitely should have stayed on Roy if there was no screen though

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6099825.html

"It was a tough shot," McGrady said. "I was anticipating a switch between myself and Ron. He got free there. He didn’t set a pick and it was just a hell of a shot. I was with him. I was anticipating there was going to be a screen for me coming up. We inverted that so if (Roy) was going to come up, Ron was going to take him, but there was no screen set. He just went up there, caught the pass – 70-footer."

Iggyemu wrote:They deserved the win more. Only McGrady and Brooks played well offensively. Only Artest and Hayes played well defensively. The Blazers deserved to win and won.


Scola had a horrible defensive game but i think his offensive game in just the first half should be noted too
Image
Funky Zed
Ballboy
Posts: 25
And1: 16
Joined: Oct 05, 2008

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#9 » by Funky Zed » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:31 pm

I might be crazy but did anyone else notice on Yao's shot the clock ran from 1.9 seconds to 0.8 seconds and just stopped, even though the ball was still in the air? Meaning the game would have ended with Yao's bucket had the clock kept on running, weird.
NYKnick87
Banned User
Posts: 7,086
And1: 1
Joined: Mar 23, 2003

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#10 » by NYKnick87 » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:38 pm

They should just flat out change the rule. If there is less than 1.2-1.5 seconds left on the clock, it has to be a tip or deflection. Even though the video "proved" that Roy got it off in time, there is no way in hell anyone can catch a ball, turn around, and shoot it in .8 seconds. The laws of the universe just doesn't allow for that.
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 36,273
And1: 8,025
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#11 » by Wizenheimer » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:40 pm

Just a couple of points:

first, on the clock stopping on Yao's shot. Salvatore's whistle stopped the clock and that happened almost immediately after the inbounds pass.

second, about Hollinger: he's had to eat a little crow with his assertion but at least he had the will to do so...

from his updated column:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-081107

However, on Friday the league office -- with sophisticated tools at its disposal -- said its review concluded the shot took just under 0.8 seconds. To be exact, it took 23 frames, each of which takes a third of a second.


obviously, he needs a proofreader in that he meant 1/30th of a second and not 1/3rd. But the point remains, and a video guy in the Blazer forum said he 'timed' it at 23 frames as well. He said that well before Hollinger backed off of his assertion.

Legal play, awful lucky for portland , but legal.
doogul
Rookie
Posts: 1,068
And1: 50
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
 

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#12 » by doogul » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:42 pm

Funky Zed wrote:I might be crazy but did anyone else notice on Yao's shot the clock ran from 1.9 seconds to 0.8 seconds and just stopped, even though the ball was still in the air? Meaning the game would have ended with Yao's bucket had the clock kept on running, weird.


Clock is stopped immediately when a foul occurs. Crazy but Roy's foul on Yao actually helped the Blazers out.

P.S. Hollinger updated the article, the NBA looked into it and determined Roy took under .8 seconds to get the shot off by looking at it frame by frame. 23 frames in fact--0.77 seconds. I looked at it on my DVR and it was definitely right around .8 seconds.

Good game guys. I thought for sure you had beaten us when Yao hit that. That shot by Yao was big time. We got lucky after you guys were killin us in the 4th.
User avatar
PocketRockets
Pro Prospect
Posts: 914
And1: 9
Joined: Mar 14, 2008

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#13 » by PocketRockets » Fri Nov 7, 2008 11:57 pm

Regardless of how much time it took to get that shot off, if the refs can use instant replay, why doesn't the NBA let them use a stopwatch?!!?? Remember that Det game last year with the magic in the playoffs? This is getting ridiculous...with all the technology they incorporate into the game now-a-days, a simple thing such as a stop watch would be nice. This simple 99c device would eliminate all "homecourt" advantage in the last seconds of a game. Clocksmen are notorious for starting the clock late for the hometeam though.....
Malapropism
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,328
And1: 1,519
Joined: Jun 15, 2008
 

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#14 » by Malapropism » Sat Nov 8, 2008 12:03 am

The Rockets wondered if he had some favorable timekeeping as well; though four different people (all three officials and the clock operator) can start the clock, it appeared it started late.

-Daily dime
GOBlazers
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,914
And1: 24
Joined: Apr 24, 2008
 

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#15 » by GOBlazers » Sat Nov 8, 2008 12:24 am

^^^^ a ref with a stop watch would have the same delay. Any of the 4 could start the clock, the fastest one did. You don't know if it was the ref or the timekeeper that started the clock, but they did it as fast as they could.
User avatar
PocketRockets
Pro Prospect
Posts: 914
And1: 9
Joined: Mar 14, 2008

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#16 » by PocketRockets » Sat Nov 8, 2008 2:12 am

No negro....a stopwatch while looking at the instant replay....remember that Det-Magic game when none of the clocks were working and det only had like 3 seconds left or something....and the three idiot refs didnt even think to use a stopwatch....the guys at TNT used one and Det used something like a 2 seconds more than they should of had. I think it was game 3/4 of last years Det-Orl playoff series.

Okay here's a YT clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMEvoT6z ... re=related
Don Draper
General Manager
Posts: 8,677
And1: 506
Joined: Mar 09, 2008
Location: schönes Wetter

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#17 » by Don Draper » Sat Nov 8, 2008 3:46 pm

Are you guys f*ucking serious? WE DESERVED TO LOSE THAT GAME. Everyone except for McGrady and Brooks playing like DLeaguers and you want to talk about the clock? Get real. If we want to play this game we should say Yao shouldn't have gotten that and 1. Who cares the Rockets played **** and lost. Blame the team, not the clock operator.
soda wrote:I will never, ever, ever vote for a socialist. I'd vote for a member of the KKK first. I'd vote for Hitler first, because the Nazis have less blood on their hands

This is the state of modern day political discourse.
User avatar
ChinaTown
Pro Prospect
Posts: 802
And1: 0
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Location: Santo Domingo, R.D.

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#18 » by ChinaTown » Sat Nov 8, 2008 5:30 pm

obinna wrote:Are you guys f*ucking serious? WE DESERVED TO LOSE THAT GAME. Everyone except for McGrady and Brooks playing like DLeaguers and you want to talk about the clock? Get real. If we want to play this game we should say Yao shouldn't have gotten that and 1. Who cares the Rockets played **** and lost. Blame the team, not the clock operator.


I agree with you. My advise to all our Rockets fan fellows is to try to enjoy the game (win, lost, good or bad play) and control your anger and stress. This is just the beginning of the season and teams are just shaping up, what you see blue now could end up being red and what you see red could end being yellow.
Image
...AND THE HOUSTON ROCKETS SHOCKED THE WORLD BY SHUTING DOWN L.A. AND C'S ON LOCK DOWN DEFENSE TO WIN THE 2008-2009 NBA CHAMPIONSHIP...
User avatar
rocketworld
Starter
Posts: 2,075
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
Location: Sugar Land

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#19 » by rocketworld » Sat Nov 8, 2008 5:38 pm

HTown_TMac wrote:I think Portland wanted more than us, if T-Mac would have played defense on that last play it would be different.

But a hell of a shot no matter how much time was taking off the clock. We could appeal it I think but we wont.



wtf..."if t-mac played defense"...he had to stay there because we were only up by one...they didnt need a three. if you watch the play again you can see that spanish guy was moving towards him and would have been open. just give roy the god damn credit...he made a crazy shot
User avatar
HTown_TMac
General Manager
Posts: 9,060
And1: 222
Joined: Oct 08, 2005
Location: Houston, Texas.
   

Re: [Hollinger] Roy's shot took 1.6 seconds to shoot 

Post#20 » by HTown_TMac » Sun Nov 9, 2008 4:58 pm

rocketworld wrote:
HTown_TMac wrote:I think Portland wanted more than us, if T-Mac would have played defense on that last play it would be different.

But a hell of a shot no matter how much time was taking off the clock
.


wtf..."if t-mac played defense"...he had to stay there because we were only up by one...they didnt need a three. if you watch the play again you can see that spanish guy was moving towards him and would have been open. just give roy the god damn credit...he made a crazy shot


ok, I gave him NO credit right?

and T-Mac should have stayed on Roy, but I have watched the video and there WAS communication issuses. You know everything I don't sorry.
Image
www.atrilli.net <- music blog

Return to Houston Rockets