The Ginobili Foul and the .4 Shot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

How much bigger would the impact of both these plays be if both teams who were the beneficiaries actually went on to win the championship.


I think Horry's game 5 shot against the Pistons is a bigger deal than both .4 and the game 7 ginobili foul since Horry's shot gave his team the ring.


While people will argue we would've been going for a 4 peat had ginobili not fouled and the .4 shot never happened, I still think the impact of both those plays is slightly lessened since neither team won it all the years that each of the respective plays took place. (which isn't to say that neither plays were not huge)


thoughts?

---

.4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stretch

Well then what about Jordan's shot in game 5 against the Cavaliers? they didnt win the title that year, but its one of the most famous and legendary shots of all time.

---

yeah I agree with that as well as what SRJ said earlier


also, in regards to .4, the only thing that makes it slightly acceptable is that the lakers did deserve .8 on the clock and not .4, as when the ball went through the hoop there was .8 left

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyParkerSux

.4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.

---

It is hard to say what would have happened if we were to have won that series. If the Spurs would have gone on to win the series it could have been a major boost and they could have made the Piston cannon fodder.....or....that series could have drained them so much that playing the Pistons in the finals would have been a non-contest....we will never know.

The .4 shot was a clean shot they even changed the rule after that. The story of the series was the disappearance of Tony Parker after we started roughing him up a little. He was killing us in the beginning and then disappeared at the end. Also Karl Malone's defense was key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TonyParkerSux

.4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.

---

Spurs lost that series in LA in games 3 and 4. We were better than the Lakers that year and after 2 great games we played in SA they were awful back in LA and let the Lakers right back in the series. Spurs played badly for most of game 5, Duncan hit a miracle shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss. Then Fisher hit a shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Spurs lost that series in LA in games 3 and 4. We were better than the Lakers that year and after 2 great games we played in SA they were awful back in LA and let the Lakers right back in the series. Spurs played badly for most of game 5, Duncan hit a miracle shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss. Then Fisher hit a shot that 999 times out of 1000 he would miss.

---

fixed it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amuseddaysleeper

fixed it

---

:smokin

I've come to the realization that our own timekeeper screwed us in the "0.4" game. He should have started the clock as soon as he saw the ball leave Payton's hands. Factoring in his reaction time it would have syncronized a little better with Fisher's catch, turnaround and shoot. The buzzer would have definitely sounded before his release.

Anyways.... what could have been....

On to the future.

Actually, I believe during the playoffs the timekeepers are not the usual team employees hired for the regular season but special ones hired by the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I've come to the realization that our own timekeeper screwed us in the "0.4" game. He should have started the clock as soon as he saw the ball leave Payton's hands. Factoring in his reaction time it would have syncronized a little better with Fisher's catch, turnaround and shoot. The buzzer would have definitely sounded before his release.

Anyways.... what could have been....

On to the future.

---

Most human reaction times are granular to about .7sec. It is a bullshit rule that shouldn't even be on the books. Anything less than about .7sec can't be reliably timed by humans.