Kori Ellis
10-17-2004, 12:37 AM
Mike Monroe: What's the point? 2, 3 or 4
Web Posted: 10/17/2004 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
NEW YORK — Sorry, Spurs fans.
In spite of what everyone in South Texas and elsewhere knows about Derek Fisher's game-winning shot in game 5 of the Spurs-Lakers Western Conference playoff series in May, the NBA did not revisit its rule relating to when a player can and can't catch and shoot in the final nano-moments of a second of a game.
Or did it?
Not that it would have changed the outcome of Game 5 anyway, but a rules change — say, legislating that a player can't catch and shoot with fewer than five-tenths of a second left — at least would have legitimized the belief that Fisher's shot was, in fact, impossible.
Instead, NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik this weekend said the rule remains the same, while allowing that the league needs to do a better job of educating everyone, from fans to players and even to coaches, about the reality of the final ticks.
That reality, said Granik, is that it takes about two-tenths of a second for even the fast-acting humans to physically hit the button that starts the clock after the eye sees the ball touch a player's hand or hands. So the fact that frame-by-frame televised replays proved that more than four-tenths of a second transpired before Fisher released his fateful shot was immaterial. And, Granik said, the NBA was content to let things remain as they were.
"No. We haven't had any discussion of that (changing the rule)," Granik said, "other than making sure everyone understands. There was some confusion about three-tenths. Some people — mostly commentators — thought the rule said that at three-tenths you don't go to replay and can't catch and shoot. But that's not what the rule book says. It says under three-tenths.
"I think the teams have come to accept that in these situations you can't have perfection, because it does take a human being, from the time you see the ball touch someone's hand and actually triggers it. And to avoid any kind of inappropriate conduct, in those circumstances there are really four people that can start the clock, whichever gets it done first. So you look at the replay and go with it.
"I don't quite know how to explain to everyone that four-tenths is really more like six-tenths, but eventually I think everyone will come to understand that."
Well, maybe yes and maybe no.
In fact, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was just as adamant that the league did change its end-game rule as Granik was that it had not.
"They did revise it," Popovich said. "They put in a new rule. It's .2 now. They changed it to .2, so if the clock says .2 there can be no shot. It used to be .3. We were all told it was never .3.
"Now, at .3 and .4 and beyond you can score. That's the new rule. You could only tip it at .3 was every coach's understanding. But we've been told that was not the case, that you could have shot that, but there was not a coach in the league that knew that. So you figure that one out. I haven't figured it out yet.
"They keep saying you could always catch and shoot at .3, and 29 coaches felt the opposite. So it's a moot point. They changed it to .2 because of the .4.
"We all know it's impossible to do what happened in .4, but it happened because human reaction is that slow, so it looks bad. If that human reaction is going to be that slow, which it is, and that made it possible for that .4 to be valid, then they had to move it to .2 to make it absolutely clear-cut. Because with human reaction, you can do what "Fish" did. But at point-two it's unequivocal. They're saying you can't
"So it's actually very clear, and it's clear why they did it, and it's understandable."
It just doesn't change what happened at SBC Center in May.
Until someone invents a digital referee that truly can operate in nanoseconds, the system in place really does work pretty well.
"We feel much better than we used to," Granik said, "when we didn't have the instant replay at the end. I was somewhat skeptical of the instant replay, but I think that has worked very well.
"So you've got a rule, and it is what it is, and you follow it and that's going to decide it, one way or the other. At some point you are dealing with such tiny fractions of time you don't even know what's right or wrong. You've just got to have the rule and follow it."
Web Posted: 10/17/2004 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
NEW YORK — Sorry, Spurs fans.
In spite of what everyone in South Texas and elsewhere knows about Derek Fisher's game-winning shot in game 5 of the Spurs-Lakers Western Conference playoff series in May, the NBA did not revisit its rule relating to when a player can and can't catch and shoot in the final nano-moments of a second of a game.
Or did it?
Not that it would have changed the outcome of Game 5 anyway, but a rules change — say, legislating that a player can't catch and shoot with fewer than five-tenths of a second left — at least would have legitimized the belief that Fisher's shot was, in fact, impossible.
Instead, NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik this weekend said the rule remains the same, while allowing that the league needs to do a better job of educating everyone, from fans to players and even to coaches, about the reality of the final ticks.
That reality, said Granik, is that it takes about two-tenths of a second for even the fast-acting humans to physically hit the button that starts the clock after the eye sees the ball touch a player's hand or hands. So the fact that frame-by-frame televised replays proved that more than four-tenths of a second transpired before Fisher released his fateful shot was immaterial. And, Granik said, the NBA was content to let things remain as they were.
"No. We haven't had any discussion of that (changing the rule)," Granik said, "other than making sure everyone understands. There was some confusion about three-tenths. Some people — mostly commentators — thought the rule said that at three-tenths you don't go to replay and can't catch and shoot. But that's not what the rule book says. It says under three-tenths.
"I think the teams have come to accept that in these situations you can't have perfection, because it does take a human being, from the time you see the ball touch someone's hand and actually triggers it. And to avoid any kind of inappropriate conduct, in those circumstances there are really four people that can start the clock, whichever gets it done first. So you look at the replay and go with it.
"I don't quite know how to explain to everyone that four-tenths is really more like six-tenths, but eventually I think everyone will come to understand that."
Well, maybe yes and maybe no.
In fact, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was just as adamant that the league did change its end-game rule as Granik was that it had not.
"They did revise it," Popovich said. "They put in a new rule. It's .2 now. They changed it to .2, so if the clock says .2 there can be no shot. It used to be .3. We were all told it was never .3.
"Now, at .3 and .4 and beyond you can score. That's the new rule. You could only tip it at .3 was every coach's understanding. But we've been told that was not the case, that you could have shot that, but there was not a coach in the league that knew that. So you figure that one out. I haven't figured it out yet.
"They keep saying you could always catch and shoot at .3, and 29 coaches felt the opposite. So it's a moot point. They changed it to .2 because of the .4.
"We all know it's impossible to do what happened in .4, but it happened because human reaction is that slow, so it looks bad. If that human reaction is going to be that slow, which it is, and that made it possible for that .4 to be valid, then they had to move it to .2 to make it absolutely clear-cut. Because with human reaction, you can do what "Fish" did. But at point-two it's unequivocal. They're saying you can't
"So it's actually very clear, and it's clear why they did it, and it's understandable."
It just doesn't change what happened at SBC Center in May.
Until someone invents a digital referee that truly can operate in nanoseconds, the system in place really does work pretty well.
"We feel much better than we used to," Granik said, "when we didn't have the instant replay at the end. I was somewhat skeptical of the instant replay, but I think that has worked very well.
"So you've got a rule, and it is what it is, and you follow it and that's going to decide it, one way or the other. At some point you are dealing with such tiny fractions of time you don't even know what's right or wrong. You've just got to have the rule and follow it."