Russ Granik and Stu Jackson on Mike Miller's 1.4 shot

[Kori Ellis]

Jackson: On the issue last night in the game, the official, upon seeing the offensive player’s jump shot from the corner, after the shot went in determined that the clock had started early. And subsequent to that determined that the jump shot taken by Mike Miller of Memphis would have taken place in the time that was on the clock to start the play of 1.4 seconds. So even though the clock did have a malfunction and began early, the crew determined that the shot still would have taken place in that 1.4 seconds, even though when he actually took the shot the buzzer had sounded and the red light had gone on. The officials are instructed that if a game clock starts early or late and the play cannot be stopped, then he must make a determination.

Granik: Our view is that the referees handled this exactly the right way. It is unfortunate that you have a situation where the clock starts early, but it happened and the referee had to deal with and we think the crew made exactly the right decision. And at that point there is no point in looking at a replay because you already determined the clock started early, that was obvious, and so there is no point in looking at whether it did or didn’t get off before the red light. It’s like the old days then, he has to make his best judgment whether or not it would have worked. Clearly that shot was off in 1.4 seconds, so they made the right call. We do not have any better way to deal with it in the playoffs, other than to not have the clock to start early.

Russ Granik, NBA Deputy Commissioner
Stu Jackson, NBA Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations

[ChumpDumper]

The officials are instructed that if a game clock starts early or late and the play cannot be stopped, then he must make a determination.Except when it's the Lakers.

[ggoose25]

what a cop out... the nba reserves the right to choose its most profitable venue

[boutons]

But clearly, it is impossible to catch, turn, jump, and release in 0.4 seconds.

1.4 seconds is possible, so refs can and do overrule the early clock.

0.4 seconds is impossible, but there the refs "can't" and won't overrule the late clock, so the refs fuck the Spurs.

[Obstructed_View]

Good explanation from the NBA. I thought .4 and 1.4 were both good calls. If the officials were so keen on giving the game to the Lakers last year they would have given them the extra time on the clock that they should have after Duncan hit the shot over Shaq. I also wouldn't exactly call Fisher's shot a "catch turn jump and shoot", it was more of a catch and fling anyway. And Miller hit the shot in less than 1.4, nobody stopped playing and the Spurs wouldn't have gotten enough time for another posession. Both games are over. If the Spurs had played better they would have won. It's time to move on.

[mookie2001]

you thought the .4 was a good call
i must call you a dumbass
howmany times must this be said, the shot was intime, but the clock started LATE
thats exactly what theyre discussing but the opposite way

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree with Obstructed on this. You only have yourself to blame if you keep a game close enough that officials CAN make a difference at the end. Complaining about officiating at that point (absent an absolutely blantant missed call -- I didn't see that in either .4 or 1.4) is, to me, a bit unseemly.

I do wonder, in a situation like the one that occurred in Memphis, why the officials don't just reset the clock to the last stoppage time and replay from there. When there are malfunctions at other points in the game (such as when a shot clock doesn't start or when it stops for some reason) the officials stop the game, reset the clock, and replay the time. I think it would be wildly unpopular to replay that time, particularly after a huge shot, but it would seem to me to be the most equitable way to handle the situation, since that's exactly how they handle similar situations at other points in the game.

[mookie2001]

so if the game is close to where a call that is needed you should give up because youve lost anyway?

[Kori Ellis]

you thought the .4 was a good call
i must call you a dumbass
howmany times must this be said, the shot was intime, but the clock started LATE

It was a good call. It takes .1 just to hit the button to start the shot clock. That's as quickly as it could have been started. And when you break down the film frame by frame (which I did at the tv station) he still gets the shot off in very close to .4.

[FromWayDowntown]

so if the game is close to where a call that is needed you should give up because youve lost anyway?

that's not what I said. What I said is that if you allow a game to remain that close and then lose on a last-second shot where timing it correctly is impossible, you have only yourself to blame if you lose. You still defend the shot -- the other team still has to make it go in. But if they can get it to go in, it's not on the officials that you lost.

In Game 5 of the Laker series last year (.4), the Spurs were lucky to be ahead at .4, since they played such uninspired ball for the first half of that game that they only got back into it because of a furious comeback. Had they played a bit better early, it might have never gotten to .4. They didn't play better, the Lakers did, and because of that, it came down to a tremendous shot by Fisher. That's not on the officials.

[Kori Ellis]

Also Duncan's shot went through with .9 or .8 left when L.A. called timeout. So it could be argued that the Lakers should have had more than .4 to shoot on the final play.

But FWD is right. It should have never come to that for the Spurs. Shaq and Medvedenko were in foul trouble in the second quarter and it was a perfect opportunity for the Spurs to cut into the lead with a lot of time left before the half. And they did nothing. As heart breaking as the loss was, they didn't do much to deserve to win.

[HB22inSA]

Actually, Kobe's two shots inside of a minute set up Fisher's shot.

Without Kobe, there is no .4 miracle shot for Fisher.

It's just a shame that no one will remember Duncan's prayer that went in just previous to that.

Oh well, that's water under the bridge now.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's just a shame that no one will remember Duncan's prayer that went in just previous to that.



Well, Duncan's shot is in every one of the NBA's "every second counts" ads that have run this spring. For now, at least, it hasn't been forgotten.

[Obstructed_View]

you thought the .4 was a good call
i must call you a dumbass
howmany times must this be said, the shot was intime, but the clock started LATE
thats exactly what theyre discussing but the opposite way

And given the following facts:

1. Though the clock started late, the Lakers should have had more time on the clock anyway...
2. Though the clock started late, Fisher went from catch to release in less than .4 anyway...
3. Your complete refusal to do anything but be a homer that cries about officiating a year after the fact...

your calling me a dumbass bothers me not in the least.

[slayermin]

We are in the digital age. Fisher's shot took 0.52.

If the Lakers had 0.8 left, the Spurs would have played it differently. I kinda wish they did have 0.8 left in hindsight.

It doesn't matter anymore. Spurs let the Lakers back into the series after laying down in game three.

[Obstructed_View]

My PVR won't do hundredths of a second, but it will approximate tenths pretty well. I had it out of his hands in less than .4. That's one of those that goes with Dwight Clark's catch and Charles Barkley's jumper. It's always gonna hurt but like you said it doesn't matter anymore, right or wrong.

[Drachen]

But clearly, it is impossible to catch, turn, jump, and release in 0.4 seconds.

1.4 seconds is possible, so refs can and do overrule the early clock.

0.4 seconds is impossible, but there the refs "can't" and won't overrule the late clock, so the refs fuck the Spurs.


shoulda been 0.8 seconds.

[mookie2001]

i wont argue that lost the series for them, spurs laid down after that
im sticking to that was a bad call
the fact is BEFORE THE PLAY there is 0.4 seconds, so that means in 1/100th of a second after the catch,the clock, if it could, would say .039 seconds, 0.38 and so on
when he catches the ball there is a pause, even in watching in at BROADCAST SPEED

[Tobias]

It should not have been .8 for the Laker's last posession. The rules state the clock stops when the ball passes through the net.

[Obstructed_View]

It should not have been .8 for the Laker's last posession. The rules state the clock stops when the ball passes through the net.
One of those sentences is incorrect because Duncan's shot passed through the net at .8. I don't care per se, I'm just saying.

[Useruser666]

I didn't think the instant replay on final shots could be used to determine late or early clock starts. I thought it could only be used to determine if the shot went off before the buzzer or not. If you could go back and give a play for one team extra time, then you should review every play that doesn't start exactly and add that to the end of the game. Why should it only be a subjective choice on the last play of the game?