Can the Kings Protest?
- Thread starter Merdiesel
- Start date
@CarmichaelDave 5m5 minutes ago
The @nba's OWN INSTAGRAM. Watch the change in rotation after it leaves Hollins' arm. http://instagram.com/p/vXips8Rh38/
The @nba's OWN INSTAGRAM. Watch the change in rotation after it leaves Hollins' arm. http://instagram.com/p/vXips8Rh38/
No, that wouldn't happen. The NBA could potentially rule that the shot took more than 0.3 seconds to get off and that the clock didn't start appropriately, and as such the shot did not count and the Kings win. They would never, ever, replay those 0.3 seconds. They DID happen, and the play would not have unfolded differently had the clock started correctly.
That said, I do not believe, not even one-tenth of one percent, that the NBA will reverse the results of the game. I believe that the shot took more than 0.3, I believe the inbounds was in fact tipped, but I do not believe that the NBA will reverse the result.
That said, I do not believe, not even one-tenth of one percent, that the NBA will reverse the results of the game. I believe that the shot took more than 0.3, I believe the inbounds was in fact tipped, but I do not believe that the NBA will reverse the result.
I don't think so, because the clock not starting didn't affect the play. Unless somebody is going to try to make the laughable argument that Lee was watching the clock and waiting for it to run down in order to shoot, the clock DID NOT affect the play. Either the play took over 0.3 seconds, or it did not, and game is decided by that fact. You do not under any circumstances replay the final 0.3. You decide whether the shot was good or not.
I think we all know how I feel about whether the shot was in fact good or not.
I think we all know how I feel about whether the shot was in fact good or not.
I stand corrected on my previous post. With .2 or .1 remaining, only a tip or high lob can count. With .3 remaining, a player can gain possession and shoot according to the rule. However, the refs can review any shot made in .3 or less to determine whether the player actually got the shot off in time or whether the clock was started appropriately.
It's clearly obvious watching the replay that the clock didn't start until after he released the shot. I think it's easy to conclude that, had it started properly, Lee's up and under motion took more than .3 to execute. The NBA won't likely see it at way I'm sure. That would only happen if the roles were reversed.
It's clearly obvious watching the replay that the clock didn't start until after he released the shot. I think it's easy to conclude that, had it started properly, Lee's up and under motion took more than .3 to execute. The NBA won't likely see it at way I'm sure. That would only happen if the roles were reversed.
That they would far rather let the result stand as called on court than overturn a game result? I believe they've done similar already in the case of a two-point/three-point error. They just said, "Whoops, we got it wrong, result stands." What are we going to do? Nothing. We protest and then nothing.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2vd4h0g.jpg
as they should. look at both pics, and look at that clock. Nothing changed
disgusting
as they should. look at both pics, and look at that clock. Nothing changed
disgusting
Acknowledging their error would be enough for me for the simple reason it would point out that the replay center isn't the perfect solution, the officials aren't getting calls right, and if they're going to use multiple cameras with different views, etc. they need to figure out a way to do it properly or don't do it at all.