Still the worst officiating in the history of American sports.
The fact that Stern didn't overule that shot will be the largest stain on an already stained resume.
Stern's legacy wil be that he would jump in front of a train for the big market teams, and would never hesitate topush the small market teams in front of a train. Like he did to us that year.
First time in sports I felt sick to my stomach.
I was watching and celebrating with my roomates at the time and saying no way he has enough time to shoot it and I still believe it. no way Fish had enough time the way he shoots. ing BULL . That and the Manu foul and we would have 2 more championships under our belt. Oh well guess we will just have to get one this year.
blame the time-keeper guy. it's not stern's fault. overriding that shot would've caused mass riots in l.a. think of the children.
In my home, 2nd floor, watching the Spurs game by myself while the family was having a nice lunch downstairs.
Jumped in excitement of how Tim's shot went in. Thoughts came to my head, I can't believe we're one game away from winning the series.
Then Fish shot came in.
To be honest, I said, oh well, damn Lakers too powerful anyway. Another le for Kobe and Shaq.. I was more of in shock that they lost to the Pistons in 5 games.
I was in San Antonio, and my husband was in LA. We were both watching the game and talking on the phone. I was a nervous wreck and then Timmy made that miracle shot. My husband started screaming "we won, we won"! But I said no, it's not over yet and this is the Lakers. Boy was I right - when that Fisher shot went in, I was in shock and just couldn't believe it. I started crying and cried most of the night. I was so distraught that I called in sick the next day!
I still haven't gotten over that loss - and I hate Derek Fisher with a passion. I think that's when I really, really started hating the Lakers. But at least I got some measure of satisfaction because I grew up in Michigan and it was pure pleasure watching the Pistons destroy the Lakers.
I was just sickened, literally sickened. I couldn't sleep that night. I was in utter shock and disbelief the refs didn't start it on time. It just doesn't even compare with the Manu foul, I mean it was so much worse to see that shot swish through the net. I'll never understand why Pop decides to not guard inbounds passers with no time on the clock. Yeah just get a free, crisp chest pass to whomever you choose!
I'm going to make this very, very clear if I can. I didn't look at when the clock started, and I only used the tenths of a second ticking down to make sure that it took three frame advances on my PVR to equal a tenth of a second. From the moment he touched the ball to the time the ball left his hands was less than 12 frame advances, which would equal four tenths of a second. Whether the clock started late or not isn't relevant, because he'd still have gotten it off if he had. I probably rewound and did the same thing several dozen times trying to find a way to invalidate that shot in some way.
Fish did not pause, he did not collect the ball, he did not gather himself. Payton hit him in the perfect spot and he caught the ball and shot it in the same motion.
Manu was right in his face. Not sure how it could have been defended any better.
Technically you can catch and shoot in .4 seconds.
But Fish didnt do that. He catches the ball at his lap in the air, lands, jumps up and brings the ball up, all while slightly fading away...than releases. Whats done is done but personally I will never admit that shot was good. That wasnt a clean catch and shoot, there were other small motions that simply make that shot impossible to get off in such a small amount of time. As far as LA needing .8 before the shot, that stuff happens practically every possesion...a few tenths/seconds are always lost after a shot. So not only would we have to put back LA's .8 seconds shot but also the other seconds lost, it would be too complicated and slow the game down way too much. Thats why reviews are limited to last second plays. I sometimes wonder if the Lakers were on the wrong end of this shot if Stern wouldve overturned it.
Anyways I was at home, thrilled when the TD shot down...than followed up with the worst sports related feeling Ive ever felt. I said two words total the next day at school. ' Fisher' to my Laker fan buddy.
Last edited by FkLA; 10-19-2009 at 05:52 PM.
I understand what O_V is saying, and I can't disagree with him, since he seems to have the facts down..but I agree with those that are questioning what would have happened had the Lakers been in our situation..
That about sums it up. Whether or not it should or should not have counted sort of wore off pretty fast, as I realized that the Spurs were never going to get that game back.
And I'm sure we all share my sentiment when I say: Thank God for the Pistons.
i was at the at&t center in the box suites....and i just sat there after the whole arena emptied...it was sad...
Watching at home with about 6 friends and my two brothers who are all Lakers fans. I still think Shaq fouled Tim in the shot prior to 0.4. I was waiting for a tip to a big or something. Never thought they'd actually let a player shoot a turn around jumper with so little time. It didn't hurt that much. I didn't think the Spurs could win it all that season.
2006 now that loss haunted me for weeks. To the point of waking up at night and crying.
I became a Piston's fan that year. My motto was "anyone but the Lakers".And I'm sure we all share my sentiment when I say: Thank God for the Pistons.
I remember. He threw both arms straight at him. There was no WAY that shot could even be clo--swish
I was watching it at my house upstairs, my dad came upstairs to watch the last few plays of the game. I was going crazy when Duncan's shot went in and my dad was pretty damn happy as well. We were both saying that it would be impossible for the lakers to get a shot off.... well we all know what happened
Reverse rolls for me. I had left the living room and gone to my room pissed cause of how bad they were playing that game (and cause i'm supers ious and wanted to change things up). After Duncan's shot I ran downstairs going crazy with my dad. Jokingly he told me to go back to my room since their comeback started the first time I went to my room. When fisher's shot went I let out a quick, very loud NO!
It's been 5 years... let the Stern conspiracies go!
As for the debate over whether it's physically possible, I think Kori said once she and the woai guys actually slo-mo'd it and timed it and it was a legit basket, even if the timer had started on time.
Oh man, let's not even go there. I wanted to choke Joey Crawford in that series and have hated his guts ever since!!!!
I don't recall that, but I do remember you calling me from game 7 of the 07 finals as the final seconds counted down. We couldn't hear each other, but I listened to the screaming from your phone for about 9 minutes before I hung up.
I was at home in Austin (in SA now) watching with my wife. Right after Duncan's shot my brother in SA called. It took me a while to answer since I was trying to watch the replay. I picked up the same time my old cassette driven answering machine did. I didn't bother to turn it off, it continued to record.
My brother and I started celebrating, I forget his exact words, but as I'm talking to him, in the background, I could hear his wife screaming "Oh no! Oh no!" Followed by my brother screaming numerous explicatives. I looked at our living room TV and couldn't believe it. I hung up and waited for the review and overrule that never came.
Even though it made me sick to my stomach at the time, I still kept the cassette recording. It was just raw emotion, from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows.
that was the worst time keeping
and stern cant afford to have the fakers hof4 team ousted early in the 2nd round...
wouldve prefer to see spurs v wolves td v kg to settle the debate.
First off, just so we're straight, we're in complete agreement on whether or not it should have counted. That was never the major contention of mine and I only ventured into this subject after your response to my, what was supposed to be, flippant comment.
Had you not said I was wrong on every level, I wouldn't even have bothered; like you, I accepted and moved on from it pretty fast.
I don't believe you're a liar or a moron and I'll respect your findings, but I can't honestly take it as the gospel; I remember Don Harris and his crew doing the same thing in his newsroom, breaking it down frame-by-frame with what I suspect was some pretty decent technology, and stating that it took 0.5 at best but they believed it to be 0.6.
Now, am I gonna sit here and say I take Don Harris' opinion as the gospel? Of course not. But when you're dealing with tenths-of-a-second and a subjective-eye judging when the ball makes contact with a players fingertip, finding consensus isn't all that easy.
The problem I have with 0.4, is that the conventional wisdom and widely accepted conclusion was that it took 0.5 to catch and shoot. After Trent Tucker and a couple others, the researchers came to the finding of 0.5 as their magic number. That same 0.5 would permeate to all the big-time and lesser announcers calling end-game situations: 'Now, you only have to have 0.5 on the clock to catch and shoot.' and it might have even influenced a little bit of pop culture with the likes of NBA Jam; remember how long it takes to get a last-second shot off?
0.4 was never the number prior to that year to get a shot off; I might be wrong, but I just don't recall it. If you asked anyone calling or playing the game, they'd all tell you 0.5 was what was needed to catch and shoot.
Again, it was accepted.
Could they all have been wrong and maybe behind the times in clock accuracy, technologically speaking? I suppose; I mean, it's not out of the realm given the advancements. But I tend to lean towards the pre-'04/.4 line of thinking. People smarter than I came up with the number without any extenuating cir stance, so I really have no reason to question it.
Now, to my real point of contention.
Why 0.4?
Would we even have ever asked that had Fisher's shot not gone down; honest question. I mean, if you remember how the league explained to the Spurs, and eventually the league, how a shot could get off in 0.4, you'd remember the 'reaction-time.' -- The league stated that the device worn on the belt of the three officials to start the clock, the quickest one to trigger being the one that initiated the start of the clock, had a 0.2 lag because of reaction-time. --
This is where it becomes laughable.
Forget everything I've written above and just actually think about that. It takes 0.2 in reaction-time to initiate the start of the clock, so it's perfectly reasonable that a shot that takes 0.5 -- if you're in my line of thinking -- or 0.4 would only need to have 0.3 or 0.2 showing on the clock to successfully catch and shoot.
What?
Well, that's the rationale, and there's nothing rational about it.
Call me a cynic, but if that's not a league cash-cow hitting a shot with 0.4, I'm guessing it's waved off.
The rationale being: 'You have to have 0.5 to successfully catch-and-shoot.'
And in my eyes, they would have been right; it would have at least saved them the trouble of explaining a successful 0.3 catch-and-shoot.
Two Questions
1. Are timekeepers supplied by the NBA or from the home team?
2. Who were the three refs in that game?
blanco tavern. worst .4 seconds of my life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
