Mass suicide in San Antonio...

[sly fly]

Read the news.

 

[sly fly]

From the immortal words of Shaq Daddy...

"One lucky shot deserves another"...

Sucks for SA.

 

[Evil Ash]

What an unbelieveable ending to that game. 2 lead changes in the matter of less than half a second ... UNREAL

 

[scudney]

Talk about an incredible ending. Too bad the Lakers came out on top

and Kobe is amazing...

 

[JerkFace]

 

[sly fly]

.4

What a shot by Derek Fisher. Good guy. One of the best clutch shots in the history of the NBA.

Just glad Karl Malone didn't hit it, or else we'd be hearing 3rd person babble.

 

[arthurracoon]

 

[slinslin]

BS

You will never convince me that it took him less than 0.4 seconds to catch and shoot. Total crap.

 

[Lefty]

What a shot by Derek Fisher. Good guy. One of the best clutch shots in the history of the NBA.

Just glad Karl Malone didn't hit it, or else we'd be hearing 3rd person babble.

It was luck, plain and simple. Lakers should romp in game six and have a huge momentum going into the conference finals. I would not be surprised now to see the Lakers roll to the title.

 

[Evil Ash]

BS

You will never convince me that it took him less than 0.4 seconds to catch and shoot. Total crap.

Honestly I'm with you. It didn't look like they started the clock immediately but damn what a finish. Basically 2 miracle shots ... UNBELIEVEABLE

 

[sly fly]

It was luck, plain and simple. Lakers should romp in game six and have a huge momentum going into the conference finals. I would not be surprised now to see the Lakers roll to the title.

Never understood why people say shots are luck. If the guy is aiming for the hoop, and knows he has to get it off... how is that luck?

Your right about the Lakers gaining momentum. I don't see SAC or MINN slowing them down. Just better hope they can keep Kobe healthy.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Stupid Lakers

 

[Chaz]

BS

You will never convince me that it took him less than 0.4 seconds to catch and shoot. Total crap.

Looked pretty good on the replay and believe me I was looking for a reason to bitch.

 

[arthurracoon]

*sigh*

I can't wait for football season...

 

[Joe Mama]

Looked pretty good on the replay and believe me I was looking for a reason to bitch.

The way I understood it 0.4 seconds is just long enough to catch the ball and shoot it, but it isn't long enough to catch the ball, turn, and then shoot it. I thought that was an awfully long 0.4 seconds. Oh well, the referees are human.

Joe Mama

 

[slinslin]

If they are already reviewing the shot why can't they review wether the ball was in contact with Fisher for 0.4 seconds at the most?

That's really bush league I think. The NBA should be better than that.

 

[sly fly]

If they are already reviewing the shot why can't they review wether the ball was in contact with Fisher for 0.4 seconds at the most?

That's really bush league I think. The NBA should be better than that.

It wasn't. The ball left his hands. Still frames proved it. It was close.

If you're going to complain about something... your attention should be towards the SAN ANTONIO TIME KEEPERS.

Boston's Leprechaun would have never let this happen.

 

[slinslin]

It doesn't matter if the ball left his hands in time. What matters is if the clock started as soon as he touched the ball.

Catch, jump, turn, shoot in 4 tenth of a second? Are you kidding me?

The league says you can catch and shoot with 0.3 seconds left. So that 0.1 extra allows you to jump, turn and fadeway as well?

 

[sly fly]

It doesn't matter if the ball left his hands in time. What matters is if the clock started as soon as he touched the ball.

Catch, jump, turn, shoot in 4 tenth of a second? Are you kidding me?

The league says you can catch and shoot with 0.3 seconds left. So that 0.1 extra allows you to jump, turn and fadeway as well?

Why don't you watch the game before you open your piehole?

You didn't watch it, did you?

Geez, it's not I'm trying to explain that the world is flat.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

If you're going to complain about something... your attention should be towards the SAN ANTONIO TIME KEEPERS.

Boston's Leprechaun would have never let this happen.

The officials now start and stop the clock, so there cannot be any hometown favortism by timekeepers.

 

[Joe Mama]

Why don't you watch the game before you open your piehole?

You didn't watch it, did you?

Geez, it's not I'm trying to explain that the world is flat.

I watched the game and I was wondering the same thing. The rules say 0.3 seconds is just enough time to catch and shoot the basketball. I have a hard time believing that the extra 0.1 seconds gave him enough time to jump and turn before he shot. He definitely got the ball of before the clock expired. The question is whether the official started the clock too late.

It was a great finish either way.

Joe Mama

 

[cardsunsfan]

Why don't you watch the game before you open your piehole?

You didn't watch it, did you?

Geez, it's not I'm trying to explain that the world is flat.

Actually it is because it's physicaly impossible to do what they state he did. You can not what he did in .4 seconds period. It's impossible.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Actually it is because it's physicaly impossible to do what they state he did. You can not what he did in .4 seconds period. It's impossible.

Well, the rules state you can. I am willing to go on a ledge and say they didn't pull that number out of the air, there was some sort of reasoning behind it.

I mean, if you look at the replay, Fisher caught the ball with his left hand and just pushed it up there. It isn't like he turned around, or set his feet, or even took a traditional jump shot.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

The rules say 0.3 seconds is just enough time to catch and shoot the basketball.

I was pretty sure the rule was it takes at least 0.4 seconds to catch and shoot. If there is less than 0.4 seconds left, you can only get a tip in.

 

[elindholm]

I thought they repealed those rules once they established replay. The point of the rules was to help the officials avoid needing to make split-second calls. If there was "enough" time left when the play started and the shooter seemed to go through the motions quickly, without hesitating, then the officials would guess (barring other information) that the shot was good.

With replay, I can't see what impact those rules would have. If the clock starts at 0.3 or even 0.2, but the replay clearly shows the shot leaving in time (and the clock starting correctly), then what is there to dispute? Similarly, if the clock reads 0.5 and everything goes smoothly, but for some reason the player is still holding the ball at zero, then there's no shot.

I bet you could get rid of the ball really quickly if you wanted to. Imagine that you're catching the proverbial hot potato. If you are young (before reaction times lengthen), your hands won't be in contact with it for as much as 0.4 seconds, especially if you can see it coming and know that you're going to have to get rid of it.

There's one other point in this case that may have helped. The official scorer is not supposed to start the clock until someone in bounds touches the ball, and he is also not supposed to anticipate that the ball will be touched by someone -- he's supposed to wait until real contact. Fisher had his back to the scorer's table and there were a lot of big people in the way, so it may have taken the smallest fraction of a second more for the scorer to see what he needed to see.

It's arbitrary anyway. It reminds me of the NFL, when the officials use guesswork to spot the ball in the general vicinity of where it should go, and then there's this big elaborate precise measurement to see whether the ball carrier earned a first down. Did Duncan's shot really go through the net at 0.4? For that matter, did the clock on the Spurs' last possession start at exactly the right time? Probably not.

So there will always be an element of randomness (or, if you prefer, serendipity) when a game is decided on a buzzer-beater. As usual, that randomness favors the Lakers. No one should be surprised.