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.
