Call, shot, whatever. The officials ruled it was good, and they were right.
The level of denial it still inspires is amazing. Seriously, if a single good shot is going to derail a team in the conference semifinals to the point that they away a 2-0 lead in the series to lose four in a row, who in their right mind thinks they're a le contender? I don't think anyone was beating the Pistons that year. They were dangerous before they knew how good they were and got lazy.It's funny to see the affect Fisher's shot still has on some people after 7 years
It's quite sad, Fishers shot was a miracle shot but so was Duncans just seconds before.It's funny to see the affect Fisher's shot still has on some people after 7 years
The only thing that kills me is when they're compiling a list a Timmy's greatest playoff moments, that shot's typically number 1....
...
Technically, yes.
Actually catching half way turned to the basket, turning, jumping and shooting in 0.4 is impossible, period. I blame the cir stances, not the officials.
No one's arguing the Spurs deserved to win that series or something, brah. 7 years or 77 years won't change the bitter taste a game winning playoff shot leaves in a dedicated fan's mouth... ahem.
1.No . Noone's arguing that the ball didnt leave his hands before the red light came on, simply that there was a delay in the clock starting which contributed to him getting it off in time. I was asking if there has ever been a review to put 0.4 seconds back on the clock after a made basket, since you said the refs wouldve certainly put the clock back at 0.8 after Timmy's basket in today's NBA.
2.No it was not all one motion.
Look at the vid yourself, broken down. It takes about 3 seconds real time for the game clock to go from 0.4 to 0.3...yet it only takes about 5 seconds real time for it to go from 0.3 to 0.0 which clearly proves that there was a delay at the beginning which enabled Fish to get off his shot. Theres no butthurt or anything of the sort on my part, whats done is done. Im simply refuting some statements made by you and others, that imho are clearly false.
Last edited by FkLA; 04-20-2011 at 04:29 PM.
Look at every inbounds play throughout that entire game to see if there was another instance of the clock not starting in time. One is just as relevant as the other. People want to focus on that one shot, but how about the other shots and other inbounds plays?
True. Unfortunately the NBA rule book says you can really only review shots at the end of quarters. Which is probably a good thing cause games would take too long tbh.
Horse . Three points in the first half count just as much as three points in the second half. Those points were handed to Memphis, and they proved to be the deciding margin in the game. But even that doesn't tell the whole story, because without those points, the Spurs wouldn't have been forced to go for 3-pointers at the end.
A missed foul call is one thing. But a call that just puts un-earned points on the board is another. (Like the bizarre refusal to call basket interference against the Griz tonight. That was two free points.) The refs aren't bound by the scoreboard clock. And they have the authority in instant replay to determine that the clock was not started on time. If you're going to use the replay, use it.
For those who are interested in the whole story about the .4 shot:
That season, the NBA rules explicitly stated that the minimum amount of time required to make a shot (other than a tip-in) was .4 seconds. I saw several games get called over that season, when a ball was in-bounded with .3 or fewer seconds and the player receiving the ball let it touch both of his hands. The refs would instantly blow their whistles and wave off anything that happened after that. You may disagree about the amount of time needed to catch and shoot, but that was the rule in the NBA at that time.
They also had a section in the rules that stated that the light behind the backboard was not the final word on when time was up. It went on to say that, in the event of a clock error, the referees have the authority to determine if the light went on too early or too late, and to make the call accordingly.
After Duncan made his shot, the refs went to the instant replay to determine if any time should have been put back on the clock. After the review, they determined that the clock should be re-set to .3 seconds. Then they gathered and discussed it, and decided on .4 seconds instead. To this day, I am convinced that they realized that with .3 seconds, the game was virtually over, and they didn't want to end the game over a .1 second discrepancy. That was probably a worse call than allowing Fisher's shot at the end.
Yes, it's possible to catch and shoot in .4 seconds - but that's not what Fisher did. The play got reviewed by the league office. And I can tell you with 100% certainty that everyone there, including David Stern, recognized that the play itself took more than .4 seconds. They discussed it, and decided that politically they could not take away a playoff game that was already in the books, no matter what the cir stances.
The league never discussed how long the play took, or when the clock started. They announced that the shot left Fisher's hand before the light on the back of the backboard went off, and let it go at that. Even though their own rules explicitly stated that the light was not the final authority. They just couldn't deal with the storm that would have come if they had disallowed that shot and given the game to the Spurs.
Some of you may try and convince yourself that the shot only took .4 seconds. But even the NBA officials don't believe that. And, yes, I knew someone who was employed by the league at the time. (Which is why I learned to despise Stu Jackson so much.) To his credit, Stern actually considered "doing the right thing" and disallowing the shot. But in the end, he decided that it was best for the league not to set the precedent. And as much as I hate to admit it, he was probably right.
Fisher made a great shot, and it counted. The Spurs lost, and that's all that matters. But don't kid yourself that the play took less than .4 seconds. It's not that hard to look at the video to see that isn't true.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
