NBA rule question

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

They used something, because they ended up deciding the play took 4.6 seconds; and resumed play with .5 seconds remaining. Van Gundy is claiming he was told by Javie that they "guestimated" the play took 4.6 seconds. I'm not saying Van Gundy is telling the truth, but given that play resumed with .5 seconds, his explanation seems as plausible as any.

I know the NBA mechanic is to allow play to continue if a play is fully developed in this situation, and determine afterwards how much time should have come off. I wonder if one of the officials caught the stopped clock and started a mental count. But 4.6? Seems awfully precise for a guess.

I agree that they can try to figure out what time had moved, but they cannot use a clock or there is no device to tell them how much time should have gone off the clock. And the shot was attempted right at when the time would have expired according to the clock ESPN used.

Peace

[Adam]

I'm only saying they should have a provision allowing them to use replay and a stop watch. Forcing them to make a "best guess" without even the benefit of the replay is just stupid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm only saying they should have a provision allowing them to use replay and a stop watch. Forcing them to make a "best guess" without even the benefit of the replay is just stupid.

I agree, but that is something for the future. And you should know that most rules are not changed until something happens in a high profile moment.

Peace

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm only saying they should have a provision allowing them to use replay and a stop watch. Forcing them to make a "best guess" without even the benefit of the replay is just stupid.

I agree and that is why this will be changed in next year's rule book.

If I had to guesstimate I would say this is what happened in the conversation between Steve, Joe and Derrick. I would say they agreed that the shot was taken before the time would have expired and that they at least wanted to give Orlando a chance at a shot attempt so that would be the reason for the .5 that was put back on the clock.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, but that is something for the future. And you should know that most rules are not changed until something happens in a high profile moment.

Peace

True enough.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

If I had to guesstimate I would say this is what happened in the conversation between Steve, Joe and Derrick. I would say they agreed that the shot was taken before the time would have expired and that they at least wanted to give Orlando a chance at a shot attempt so that would be the reason for the .5 that was put back on the clock.

Got it. You guesstimated and they just guessed.

Nothing that happens anymore in the NBE surprises me.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Got it. You guesstimated and they just guessed.

Nothing that happens anymore in the NBE surprises me.

Give it time.

[Jurassic Referee]

The official NBE response is that the officials guessed wrong. The play took 5.7 seconds and the shot shouldn't have counted.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=3384577

There is nowayinhell that the officials should ever be faulted for this one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The official NBE response is that the officials guessed wrong. The play took 5.7 seconds and the clock shouldn't have counted.

I think that the problem was that the clock didn't count.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The official NBE response is that the officials guessed wrong. The play took 5.7 seconds and the clock shouldn't have counted.

Does the NBE have an official response on (non)traveling?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I think that the problem was that the clock didn't count.

Well, as my sainted Grandfather useta say "Don't count your clocks until they're hatched."'

The old goof was a little loony.

Yes, M&M, Snaqs et al, , it is hereditary.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The official NBE response is that the officials guessed wrong. The play took 5.7 seconds and the shot shouldn't have counted.

There is nowayinhell that the officials should ever be faulted for this one.

That's what they get for making the officials guess. Maybe they'll let them use replay next year.

[Cajun Reff]

Originally Posted by CLH

Ok you guys who know me, know i couldn't keep quiet for long when someones running down my hero!!! haha. did you catch the article about steve in Referee magazine this month?

http://www.referee.com/more/Samples/...508/javie.html

[Scrapper1]

There is nowayinhell that the officials should ever be faulted for this one.

Agree completely with this. The refs had no recourse in the situation. The rules FORCE them to guess, and when you're dealing with tenths of a second, there's no way they can guess accurately.

The one thing they can be faulted for is not noticing sooner the the clock was stopped. One question I have is whether -- if they HAD noticed -- one of the officials could've started the clock with his PTS box on his waist.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The official NBE response is that the officials guessed wrong. The play took 5.7 seconds and the shot shouldn't have counted.

Originally Posted by Snaqwell

Maybe they'll let them use replay next year.

The problem with this approach is that you're almost penalizing the offensive team. If the clock had been accurate, the player with the ball at the 0.4 mark would likely have shot the ball, instead of making the pass for the actual final shot.

So if you go to replay, you have to wipe off the final shot, obviously. But because of the bad information on the clock, you've sort of screwed them out of the chance to take a legitimate shot.

Maybe the NBA will go to do-overs, like when they replayed the end of the game where Shaq erroneously got fouled out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The problem with this approach is that you're almost penalizing the offensive team. If the clock had been accurate, the player with the ball at the 0.4 mark would likely have shot the ball, instead of making the pass for the actual final shot.

So if you go to replay, you have to wipe off the final shot, obviously. But because of the bad information on the clock, you've sort of screwed them out of the chance to take a legitimate shot.

Agreed, and this is the reason I don't like the idea of an official starting a silent/visible count when the end of the quarter is coming and the clock didn't start properly. Players go by what they see on the clock. I've done it, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with it.