0.4 Vol. Where were you?

**disciple** · 10-20-2009

The most __________ sports day of my entire life.

Just fill in the blank and I went through that emotion.

exilerating
angered
sad
confused
depressed
and on and on

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by BLACKJACK21

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?

Okay, I hate to beat this dead horse into the ground, and I mean no disrespect at all, but one of the reasons for my earlier statement is that your facts don't fit with mine on this. Tucker caught the ball and shot it with .1 on the clock and it was counted. The NBA later amended their rules that it takes at least .3 to catch and shoot, and unless a ball is a tip-in or alley-oop, there must be .3 or more on the clock. Check the NBA rulebook and Google the "trent tucker rule" for more info. What Fisher did was far less than a catch-and-shoot since he did it in one motion, and he had 33 percent more time to do it in. By all logic without ever having to watch a slo-mo replay, he got the shot off in plenty of time.

Originally Posted by BLACKJACK21

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, the NBA rulebook has stated for years that you must tip the ball in with less than .3 on the clock, but that you may catch and shoot if there is .3 or more on the clock.

Originally Posted by BLACKJACK21

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. --

Now you have my interest piqued with this, because I'm willing to admit that I actually don't remember this at all. I don't doubt you, I simply have no memory of this. It makes zero sense to me that the league would attempt to justify a guy getting off a shot in 4/10 of a second when the rules clearly state that it's possible to do. There shouldn't be any fudging of numbers about reaction times or any of that. "Look at the rule book" should have been as far as the NBA went with it when pressed for an explanation.

Anybody have a link to the NBA's explanation to the Spurs about the .4 shot? Sounds like they shot themselves in the foot from a PR standpoint. Wouldn't surprise me in the least, since they always seem to get panicky when there's any kind of controversy. Since the NBA didn't overturn Trent Tucker catching, turning around and hitting a three pointer with .1 on the clock, I'm puzzled as to why the Spurs would even have bothered asking the league about it.

**Blackjack** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Okay, I hate to beat this dead horse into the ground, and I mean no disrespect at all, but one of the reasons for my earlier statement is that your facts don't fit with mine on this. Tucker caught the ball and shot it with .1 on the clock and it was counted. The NBA later amended their rules that it takes at least .3 to catch and shoot, and unless a ball is a tip-in or alley-oop, there must be .3 or more on the clock. Check the NBA rulebook and Google the "trent tucker rule" for more info.

My point with Tucker wasn't the amount of time, I was aware of it being 0.1, it was the research and findings that came from the incident. I wish I could point to the studies and the people that came to the 0.5 number, but I'm not sure if there was anything ever done 'officially' or if it was just a number thrown out by some people thought to be in the know.

I happened to hear it reinforced by respected commentators and others in the league for years, so, naturally, I assumed it to be true; I didn't have a 0.4 incident to pique my interest enough in order to question it.

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

What Fisher did was far less than a catch-and-shoot since he did it in one motion, and he had 33 percent more time to do it in. By all logic without ever having to watch a slo-mo replay, he got the shot off in plenty of time

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one; it's much easier and less time-consuming than arguing over something we both feel was irrelevant; 0.8 should have been on the clock.

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Again, the NBA rulebook has stated for years that you must tip the ball in with less than .3 on the clock, but that you may catch and shoot if there is .3 or more on the clock.

If it has, that's fine. I'm not going to argue it. But it does make me wonder how I, someone who's followed the league closely, was never made aware of it..

Again, 0.5 was the number I was told from commentators and NBA-types for years.

I've never heard anyone mention 0.3 to successfully catch-and-shoot prior to this last year, but I'm perfectly aware that you can tip or shoot an unnatural/heave-type shot in 0.3 or less.

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Now you have my interest piqued with this, because I'm willing to admit that I actually don't remember this at all. I don't doubt you, I simply have no memory of this. It makes zero sense to me that the league would attempt to justify a guy getting off a shot in 4/10 of a second when the rules clearly state that it's possible to do. There shouldn't be any fudging of numbers about reaction times or any of that. "Look at the rule book" should have been as far as the NBA went with it when pressed for an explanation.

Anybody have a link to the NBA's explanation to the Spurs about the .4 shot? Sounds like they shot themselves in the foot from a PR standpoint. Wouldn't surprise me in the least, since they always seem to get panicky when there's any kind of controversy. Since the NBA didn't overturn Trent Tucker catching, turning around and hitting a three pointer with .1 on the clock, I'm puzzled as to why the Spurs would even have bothered asking the league about it.

I'm sure it's out there, after all, it was something I heard about on TV and read in the E-N -- IIRC-- so there should be something to find.

I've got a pretty damn good memory and the story of how the clock is initiated by a mechanism on the refs belt, all three have one and the quickest reaction starts the clock, is something I remember too vividly to be that off about.

Come to think of it, I think I remember David Aldridge on TNT(?) and one of the ESPN guys doing a segment on it shortly after the incident. Pop's complaint/protest to the league's office immediately following the game had them arguing/explaining the league's decision.

**Obstructed_View** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by BLACKJACK21

I'm sure it's out there, after all, it was something I heard about on TV and read in the E-N -- IIRC-- so there should be something to find.

I've got a pretty damn good memory and the story of how the clock is initiated by a mechanism on the refs belt, all three have one and the quickest reaction starts the clock, is something I remember too vividly to be that off about.

Come to think of it, I think I remember David Aldridge on TNT(?) and one of the ESPN guys doing a segment on it shortly after the incident. Pop's complaint/protest to the league's office immediately following the game had them arguing/explaining the league's decision.

And I'm sure you're correct, but I didn't live in San Antonio at the time, so I'd have missed out on any local coverage of it. Your explanation of the clock mechanism is dead-on, so that confirms that you obviously saw something of the kind relating to it. I'd be interested in seeing the explanation from the NBA, if for no other reason its comic value, since one would assume the league office would know their own rulebook.

Perhaps the people that seem to have a knack for finding old E/N articles online could help with this one. I've had about as much luck searching mysanantonio.com as I have searching Spurstalk.

**Blackjack** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

And I'm sure you're correct, but I didn't live in San Antonio at the time, so I'd have missed out on any local coverage of it. Your explanation of the clock mechanism is dead-on, so that confirms that you obviously saw something of the kind relating to it. I'd be interested in seeing the explanation from the NBA, if for no other reason its comic value, since one would assume the league office would know their own rulebook.

Perhaps the people that seem to have a knack for finding old E/N articles online could help with this one. I've had about as much luck searching mysanantonio.com as I have searching Spurstalk.

You too; this search thing might as well be something from NASA.

I'll see if I can get someone to help out.

**duncan228** · 10-20-2009

The search on MySA is useless.

**Blackjack** · 10-20-2009

Originally Posted by duncan228

The search on MySA is useless.

All of a sudden I'm not feeling like the complete moron I thought myself to be; maybe a bit more of an incomplete moron?

**nadroj117** · 10-20-2009

Like the rest of you, I'll never forget this night...

So earlier in the day my brother and I had moved out of our apartment in San Marcos, but didn't need to turn the keys in for a couple more days. A week prior, my then girlfriend moved in to the connecting apartment on the same floors as mine. So I watched the game there while my brother watched at a friends house.

In college my brother seemed to always have the worst luck. If I wanted to bet, I'd ask who he liked, and bet the opposite. Worked like a charm. I'm very supers ious and would always get mad at my bro prematurely calling victories, Longhorns or Spurs. When Duncan's shot went in I was yelling like crazy, then my phone rang.... My brother's named popped up, I answered the phone and all I said was "what the fu** are you calling for, Kobe still has 1 more shot left," and hung up on him. At this point i'm still excited but was hoping he didn't jinx it. Sure enough, although fisher and not kobe, 0.4 seconds later my phone flew across the wall and smashed into it shattering. Then I walked over to the apartment I had just moved out of and proceeded to put a fist through the wall. My brother later apologized, and we have an agreement... until the clock says 0.0 in any sport we will not call each other.

Basically I still believe it was my brother's fault and not Fisher's lol kidding