Reply With Quote
OK. So NOW that the SPURS got the call they want to look into it. you Stern, this should have been looked at when .4 happened.
On further review, NBA will consider using more replay
Mike Monroe
Imagine if Michael Finley had launched a game-winning shot a split-second after the shot clock expired, but the game in question had been Game 7 of a playoff series, rather than a regular-season game against the Kings.
Better yet, imagine it had been Kobe Bryant making an instant-too-late shot to deprive the Spurs of a Game 7 victory in the Western Conference finals.
Would that convince you the NBA needs to add televised review of timing errors in the final two minutes of every game?
In case you just returned from a spelunking expedition, here's what happened Sunday night:
Finley made a 3-pointer with 1.3 seconds left at Sacramento, giving the Spurs a 95-92 lead; replays showed the shot clock had expired before the ball left his hand; replay rules did not allow the referee crew to check a TV monitor to correct the error.
The NBA allows replay to be used only to correct timing errors when the clock reaches zero at the end of any quarter, or to determine, at any time, if a shot was released behind the 3-point line.
The NBA's Board of Governors will consider what seems an urgent need for amendment to the rules when it meets Thursday and Friday.
Immediate change, though, may not be forthcoming.
Commissioner David Stern understands there is a problem that needs fixing. He promised Monday that the board would hear about the problem.
What is less certain is the potential timing of the fix.
“I'm open to consideration of the subject,” Stern said. “We are moving, perhaps too gradually for some, to more and more review, instant replay.
“I don't know that, given the number of categories that this potential review of that call would open up, that we want to do it on three days' notice or four days' notice (before the playoffs).”
Key timing errors are rare, but the Spurs have been involved in two over the past 17 days. They were on the wrong side of the we-can't-look-at-replay rule March 29, when a couple of seconds ran off the game clock with nine or 10 seconds left in a one-point game in New Orleans.
The NBA is justifiably reluctant to inject replay delay into its games. Basketball is more dynamic than football, where there is a stoppage between every play just to place the ball at the proper spot on the field before the next play begins. Interrupting the flow of an NBA game has the potential to damage the product.
The integrity of the game, however, depends on the participants, including the fans, knowing that every effort will be made to get things right, especially in the tension of crunch time. Allowing reviews of all timing issues in the final two minutes of games, when each possession often is precious, makes so much sense the board should err on the side of integrity, rather than efficiency.
OK. So NOW that the SPURS got the call they want to look into it. you Stern, this should have been looked at when .4 happened.
Ha! Yeah, it sure does seem that way.
ROFL. Just ROFL.
Of course...Stern hates the Spurs...
With this on top of the NBA commercials, there's no doubt.
What a ing joke. So the Spurs get a relatively meaningless win in the regular season and now they want to review the rule.
What a load of . Review 0.4 you pieces of crap.
Stern needs to GTFO of the NBA. He's too old to want to make any meaningful changes. I mean come on, he states it will be a gradual change?
Why? Hasn't he ever heard of technology? And, why haven't they done this years ago?
(.04 example, the Barry no call on a blatant foul last year)
lol...
Stern and NBA board (commission)=
Wow.
I can't believe this .
Actually, I do
Of course the rule needs to be reviewed.
WTF are people ing about?
I think it's pretty obvious what "people are ing about."
Been around for a while but what's the point of reviewing 0.4?
The shot was off before time expired.
The clock didn't start when it should have.
LOL? Arguing over that? Seriously?
One lucky shot deserves another.
One lucky shot was performed within game time, the other wasn't. There's really nothing to argue. It took Fish over 1 second to catch, turn around and release the shot. There were only .4 left.LOL? Arguing over that? Seriously?
One lucky shot deserves another.
Whatever it takes to get to sleep at night I guess.
I sleep fine. We won two more rings since then, which obviously makes you sleep a lot better at night. That doesn't mean that play didn't warrant a review of the rules concerning end of game plays and clock malfunction. It really is no different than this play with Finley, as far as warranting a review of the rules.
Whatever it takes to get to sleep at night I guess.
Too bad you got smashed by Detroit. That's what you get for a shot that never should have counted.
Whatever it takes to get to sleep at night I guess.
I agree that 0.4 was some pure BS. But how can you say that win was relatively meaningless? It could potentially decide who gets homecourt this postseason and who wins the division.
Nothing to see here. NBA standard operating procedure. The Spurs benefit, so change the rule. Just changing the rules they're supposed to change.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
