I need some help guys,
Diaw or Bell signaled for a timeout with 2.6 seconds left in the second overtime after Manu's layup. I taped this portion of the game and saw the TO signal clear as day.
Isn't this what Chris Webber did all those years ago in the NCAA final and got called for a "T"?
In the NBA, isn't the rule the same where you cannot call a timeout if you are out of timeouts?
I'm not surprised this particular crew missed that, but shouldn't the Spurs have received a technical free throw and the ball?
Just wondering.
I thought Phoenix called 2 timeouts in the first half of OT2 (maybe a little later, but still...), but early enough that even my wife said - wow, they're out of timeouts already. I do not remember the Spurs calling a time out. Then the Spurs call one near the end of OT2 and then the scoreboard says Spurs 0 TOL, Phoenix 1 TOL. I was pretty confused by this as well and just figured someone one of the timeouts was actually called by the Spurs, but I couldn't figure out how/when.
No timeout was given because the Suns inbounded the ball for the Nash despiration 3 pointer that missed.
I thought that the timeout signal by the player would be a technical, in this case against Phoenix.
I saw that..I think it was Grant Hill pulling a Webber. The refs definitly should have caught that.
I'm probably talking about OT1 then... my bad.
Yea i know exactly what you are talking about ...... I think it was Grant Hill calling for a time out. Im sure the refs saw him do it but just let him get away with it...... And yes it is a T when you call a Timeout and don't have any. I play NBA 2K8 and ive called a Timeout when i didn't have any and it was a T. Yea i knows its a little lame that i learned that rule from a video game...
Good thing Manu made the shot. Because no way were the refs ever going to call the T on the Suns and the game would have gone to a very controversial triple-OT.
I think they were about to call a time out...with their hands...but they never completed the "T" symbol in question....at least that's what I saw...
Grant Hill did signal timeout, but I think somebody must have yelled from the Suns' bench, cuz he turned and looked at the bench, then stopped signaling abruptly and ran towards center court
Yeah Hill was about to signal a TO but stopped himself. Good no call. He never actually called time out. The game was pretty fairly officiated IMO (other than the Shaq mugging on Manu that was not called).
Actually Hill completed the signal for timeout, the refs just didn't have the balls to T them up.
it definitely could have been called, but i'll give the refs credit for knowing the situation and going with a play-on.
Eh, same thing happened with Rasheed Wallace in 2005 in game 5 of the Finals. Remember? Manu miss, Tim couldn't get the putback, Sheed signalled for timeout when Det didn't have any left? It should have been a technical, but they ignored it and allowed it to go to overtime. Refs will nearly always go blind over something like that, lest there be huge controverseries and outcry in the media.
So, situational rules instead of actually enforcing rules. Typical of things nowdays.
sheed didn't get bailed out by the refs, he got bailed out by the clock, when he signaled there was no time left
If you see the replay from above (visible in one of the Manu vids), Hill doesn't seem to complete the timeout signal, and I doubt he called for one. He was probably thinking about it, looking at the bench for confirmation, and then realized they didn't have any. I'm sure they would have T'd them up if he had actually said, "TIMEOUT!!! We losin' this !"
The problem is that the only situation when the rule is ever going to be applicable is at the end of a close game. If you aren't going to call it then, you're never going to call it. So then why bother having the rule?
It matters not...Spurs won...'nuff said...
thats not true at all. sheed called the timeout AFTER the clock ran out. as a result, nothing happens, because regulation had already ended.
There should be a new rule. If an NBA favorite team pulls a boner play by calling a TO when they don't have one, it's overlooked. We can implement that one at the same time as no intentional fouls ever, because it hurts SNaq's feelings when he misses the FTs.
Getting a technical foul would have actually been a great move for Phoenix. They would have been able to get set and would have only been down by a three they were going to take anyways. I don't know if they would have advanced the ball, but it could have helped.
Since they had no TOs, no the ball wouldn't advance. Also, there would have been FTs associated with the T, so the margin would have changed. It's moot, since their desperation heave was missed, but it could have been huge. I'm thinking if they hit the heave, the Spurs protest, and it's upheld and played out before the next game.
Old fogies will remember that this is exactly what Phoenix did to force the 3rd overtime in the 1976 Finals against the Celtics.
Havlicek scored to put Boston up by one, one second was put on the clock. Phoenix called a TO they didn't have because after the te al FT, they could advance the ball to halfcourt. Boston hit the FT, Phonix inbounded the ball, and Gar Heard hit his shot to tie the game again.
Red Auerbach had the rule changed the next year so that you wouldn't get the ball at halfcourt in that situation.
Paul Westphal's greatest coaching move.
spurs won move on
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
