-
If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
But it didn't go in so.....:toast
http://blogs.chron.com/franblinebur...nd_rockets.html
quote: I have received a clarification from the NBA office on Matt Bonner's shot at the end of Sunday's game. It would have counted.
If the clock shows LESS than 0.3, then it can only be a tip-in or lob. It came about after a MLK Day game at Madison Square Garden in 1990 when the Knicks beat Michael Jordan's Bulls when Trent Tucker caught an inbounds pass near the baseline, spun and put up a 3-pointer -- all in an alleged 0.1 seconds -- for a 109-106 win
The Trent Tucker Rule: "The game clock must show :00.3 or more in order for a player to secure possession of the ball on a rebound or throw-in to attempt a field goal."
In other words, good thing Bonner's shot missed.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
At least this time it the blindfolded prayer from halfcourt didn't go in :)
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indazone
At least this time it the blindfolded prayer from halfcourt didn't go in :)
Yes sir..but your offensive goaltending kinda turned that away, didn't it? And the fact that there should have been one second left, not .3. :)
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Ha, Rockets fans would have gone ballistic if that would have counted. I know the announcers were like, "there's no way that could count, he doesn't have time to do that." The fact is, Bonner asked a ref before he shot it whether or not .3 seconds is time enough to catch and release, and the ref confirmed that it was possible.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Damn. That game apparently was the biggest game for Rockets fans in almost the last decade and a half.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
i noticed that too, those responsible for the clock are doing an incredibly sloppy job. they just start it late, and stop it late and no one seems to notice.
1. there should have been a full second left but the imprecise lazy assholes just let it run down to 0.3
2. Bonner caught the pass and got the shot off BEFORE the 0.3 expired, they clearly started it late just as they did with fisher's 0.4 shot.
the league needs to crack down on this, the clock keepers have to be precise. if you watch the clock during the whole game there are lots of examples of time wasted or incorrectly managed due to their sloppiness.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Bryant
Damn. That game apparently was the biggest game for Rockets fans in almost the last decade and a half.
:lol
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Bryant
Damn. That game apparently was the biggest game for Rockets fans in almost the last decade and a half.
I was thinking just that :wakeup
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Bryant
Damn. That game apparently was the biggest game for Rockets fans in almost the last decade and a half.
:lol No doubt.
If Bonner hits that shot, Spurs fans are already over it. Instead, Rocket Fan will be talking about that win until the day they get eliminated in the first round.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
eh, Id have been happier knowing it couldnt have counted. Bonner failed me.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
poop
i noticed that too, those responsible for the clock are doing an incredibly sloppy job. they just start it late, and stop it late and no one seems to notice.
1. there should have been a full second left but the imprecise lazy assholes just let it run down to 0.3
2. Bonner caught the pass and got the shot off BEFORE the 0.3 expired, they clearly started it late just as they did with fisher's 0.4 shot.
the league needs to crack down on this, the clock keepers have to be precise. if you watch the clock during the whole game there are lots of examples of time wasted or incorrectly managed due to their sloppiness.
I think in the final moments of the game, the refs start/stop the clock, no? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the lead official has a remote button on his shorts (looks like a pager). The scorer's table has to change the actual clock (if the refs decide there should be more or less time on it), but I'm quite positive it's the ref that starts and stops it from counting.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
z0sa
eh, Id have been happier knowing it couldnt have counted. Bonner failed me.
I didn't even contemplate that shot going in. The day Bonner hits a game-winning three-pointer is the day after I win the lottery for the second time.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
I had thought all along that .03 is not enough time for a catch and shoot by NBA rules. Call me educated on the matter now. Thanks for the heads up. :tu
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Bryant
Damn. That game apparently was the biggest game for Rockets fans in almost the last decade and a half.
And probably will continue to be for the next decade and a half......:rolleyes
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
I didn't even contemplate that shot going in. The day Bonner hits a game-winning three-pointer is the day after I win the lottery for the second time.
:lol
What miracle would precipitate your first lottery win?
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Agloco
:lol
What miracle would precipitate your first lottery win?
Mahinmi seeing the court.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
I didn't even contemplate that shot going in. The day Bonner hits a game-winning three-pointer is the day after I win the lottery for the second time.
:nope
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
i just can't believe Bonner's release is 0.3 seconds fast...at all.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheDarkSide.
i just can't believe Bonner's release is 0.3 seconds fast...at all.
Its not. Dick Bavetta's vision is about 0.6 seconds slow.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chomag
I had thought all along that .03 is not enough time for a catch and shoot by NBA rules. Call me educated on the matter now. Thanks for the heads up. :tu
.03 isn't enough time. 0.3 is.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Rockets fans have so much fun with the Regular Season huh? To us it is nothing but :sleep till Playoffs.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
poop
1. there should have been a full second left but the imprecise lazy assholes just let it run down to 0.3
Well if he would have had a second left then I don't think the shot would have been anymore wide open than it already was. That and the fact that he clearly didn't actually catch and shoot a ball in under 0.3 seconds. The league needs to change that rule and make it at least 0.5 seconds to be able to get a shot off. Even with 0.5 seconds I dont think you can realistically catch and shoot a basketball.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Ron Artest
Well if he would have had a second left then I don't think the shot would have been anymore wide open than it already was. That and the fact that he clearly didn't actually catch and shoot a ball in under 0.3 seconds. The league needs to change that rule and make it at least 0.5 seconds to be able to get a shot off. Even with 0.5 seconds I dont think you can realistically catch and shoot a basketball.
Lakers v. Spurs, Game 5, 2004 Forum.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Not that they didn't ruin the game already with pretty much every word that came out of their unlistenable traps, but Bill Worrell and Clyde Drexler went on and on about how .03 seconds was not enough time to catch and shoot. Maybe it's just me, but I would expect these two dipshits to know and understand the rules- for the sake of accuracy and credibility at the very least. Perhaps if you aren't sure, could you be a little less definitive? Anyone on NBA Ticket who was subjected to that piece of shit broadcast left confused as to why Bonner was allowed to put up that last shot. Worrell and Drexler make Mike Gorman and Tommy Heinsohn look like the gold standard in objectivity.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Ron Artest
Well if he would have had a second left then I don't think the shot would have been anymore wide open than it already was. That and the fact that he clearly didn't actually catch and shoot a ball in under 0.3 seconds. The league needs to change that rule and make it at least 0.5 seconds to be able to get a shot off. Even with 0.5 seconds I dont think you can realistically catch and shoot a basketball.
Actually a NBA player has caught, shot and made a 3 point shot in .22 seconds. It was on a show called sport science (I think - was was surfing and spotted it) and Jason Kapono was able to do it though admittedly he wasn't guarded at the time. The experiment was to see if a player could catch and shot in under .3 seconds. He did it so it is possible.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timvp
I didn't even contemplate that shot going in. The day Bonner hits a game-winning three-pointer is the day after I win the lottery for the second time.
Cue Matt Bonner breaking down your door with his face in 3...2....
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Honestly ... I am skeptical whether it is even possible for humans to accurately keep time on a game down to tenths of a second. And to even know for sure whether they are being accurate in the first place. How are we so sure that 0.3 was the correct clock reading in the first place? Instant replay is nice, but it still comes down to man's judgment.
Epistemology and sports ... that would be a good book! Don't get me started on its implications for football.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
freemeat
I think in the final moments of the game, the refs start/stop the clock, no? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the lead official has a remote button on his shorts (looks like a pager). The scorer's table has to change the actual clock (if the refs decide there should be more or less time on it), but I'm quite positive it's the ref that starts and stops it from counting.
My understading is that the remote on their hips is connected to their whistles to automatically stop the clock at the sound of their whistle. I could be wrong but I was pretty sure the refs can only STOP the clock by blowing their whistle, but they do not start the clock, which is why they still signal to the bench when the ball has been officially inbounded by lowering their hand from a raised position.
Otherwise, what would be the point of signalling when the ball has been inbounded if you can just push a button to start the clock yourself?
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Quixote
Honestly ... I am skeptical whether it is even possible for humans to accurately keep time on a game down to tenths of a second. And to even know for sure whether they are being accurate in the first place. How are we so sure that 0.3 was the correct clock reading in the first place? Instant replay is nice, but it still comes down to man's judgment.
Epistemology and sports ... that would be a good book! Don't get me started on its implications for football.
I tend to agree with all of that. Such seemingly apparent truths, however, didn't stop Dick Bavetta from adjusting the clock by .7 with a little more than 30 seconds to go in the first quarter of Sunday's game. Bavetta is, apparently, convinced that he can perceive 7 tenths of a second without even needing the assistance of a super-slo mo replay.
He's truly an amazing cat, that Dick Bavetta.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indazone
But it didn't go in so.....:toast
http://blogs.chron.com/franblinebur...nd_rockets.html
quote: I have received a clarification from the NBA office on Matt Bonner's shot at the end of Sunday's game. It would have counted.
If the clock shows LESS than 0.3, then it can only be a tip-in or lob. It came about after a MLK Day game at Madison Square Garden in 1990 when the Knicks beat Michael Jordan's Bulls when Trent Tucker caught an inbounds pass near the baseline, spun and put up a 3-pointer -- all in an alleged 0.1 seconds -- for a 109-106 win
The Trent Tucker Rule: "The game clock must show :00.3 or more in order for a player to secure possession of the ball on a rebound or throw-in to attempt a field goal."
In other words, good thing Bonner's shot missed.
Bonner make a game winning shot?:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FromWayDowntown
I tend to agree with all of that. Such seemingly apparent truths, however, didn't stop Dick Bavetta from adjusting the clock by .7 with a little more than 30 seconds to go in the first quarter of Sunday's game. Bavetta is, apparently, convinced that he can perceive 7 tenths of a second without even needing the assistance of a super-slo mo replay.
He's truly an amazing cat, that Dick Bavetta.
And it's impossible for a human referee to instantaneously signal at the precise moment when something happens, and for the clock guy to get it right on the dot. At best, it is an arbitrary exercise. As are fouls -- that totally bothers me. They are called sporadically at best and are subject to varying interpretations.
About the only thing that doesn't bother me about the whole thing is whether or not the shot went in. It's either a 0 (it missed) or 1 (it went in). No gray area. Epistemology is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine.
-
Re: If Bonner's shot would have gone in, it would have counted
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Ron Artest
Well if he would have had a second left then I don't think the shot would have been anymore wide open than it already was. That and the fact that he clearly didn't actually catch and shoot a ball in under 0.3 seconds. The league needs to change that rule and make it at least 0.5 seconds to be able to get a shot off. Even with 0.5 seconds I dont think you can realistically catch and shoot a basketball.
There was one of those sports science shows on TV a while back and Jason Kapono had some device hooked up to a glove. He proved he could catch, shoot, and make a basket in either 0.23 or 0.28 seconds ! I can't remember exactly, but it was less than 0.3 seconds.
