He would only have to look at the clock once to know how much time he had. You telling me you don't think he could have got a shot off no matter what? As it stands he didn't get any kind of shot off. I don't see why it's unreasonable to think he wouldn't have got some kind of shot off if he knew it was tipped. That's the argument.
[Game] Kings v. Raptors - 11/20/16 - 6 PT/9ET
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Just came on here for some fun. Great win by the Kings, your defense was awesome tonight and it was nice to see the whole team working together, especially for a team considered to be dysfunctional, this must be refereshing for you guys.
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you
). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you
). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
Just as a note - it was an extremely odd ending to the game inside Golden1 Arena.
I clearly saw the backboard lights go off AFTER the ball left Ross' hands so while I understood that they had to review it I assumed it would quickly be confirmed as good and the game head to OT.
But the review process took forever. And they didn't show a single replay in the arena for early the entire time the review was happening.
When they finally did it was showing the inbounds and Boogie ripping the ball and I finally realized what was being reviewed.
I still never thought they'd waive off the shot and when Darren Collison walked to midcourt I assumed they called the shot good and the Kings were trickling back onto the court to play overtime.
After they waived the shot off it took a moment for the crowd to realize what happened. Once they did people just starting finling out. Very strange. I've never seen anything quite like it.
While the ruling benefitted the Kings and while I'm guessing a frame-by-frame review probably did show that more time elapsed than the Raptors had, I still think that game should have went to OT.
But hey, nice to catch a break finally.
I clearly saw the backboard lights go off AFTER the ball left Ross' hands so while I understood that they had to review it I assumed it would quickly be confirmed as good and the game head to OT.
But the review process took forever. And they didn't show a single replay in the arena for early the entire time the review was happening.
When they finally did it was showing the inbounds and Boogie ripping the ball and I finally realized what was being reviewed.
I still never thought they'd waive off the shot and when Darren Collison walked to midcourt I assumed they called the shot good and the Kings were trickling back onto the court to play overtime.
After they waived the shot off it took a moment for the crowd to realize what happened. Once they did people just starting finling out. Very strange. I've never seen anything quite like it.
While the ruling benefitted the Kings and while I'm guessing a frame-by-frame review probably did show that more time elapsed than the Raptors had, I still think that game should have went to OT.
But hey, nice to catch a break finally.
I am a little torn about it. It is definitely a very hot topic of discussion all over the internet. On one hand, if anything I can see a re-do of the play if the clock started incorrectly due to the Cousins tip being missed initially. I can't say I'd agree with just counting the shot, as if there were to have been less time on the clock who can say the exact same shot would have been executed. It was an ugly and definitely anti-climactic way to win.
On the other hand I can absolutely agree it is nice to be on the side of a call like this that gets the W for once.
On the other hand I can absolutely agree it is nice to be on the side of a call like this that gets the W for once.
Just came on here for some fun. Great win by the Kings, your defense was awesome tonight and it was nice to see the whole team working together, especially for a team considered to be dysfunctional, this must be refereshing for you guys.
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you
). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
Objectively, I agree with you. I would have been pissed if the Kings were on the opposite end of it.
While I'm certainly happy the Kings finally got over on a game-decided ruling, it does irritate me because I don't understand why the same thing didn't happen a few years ago on Courtney Lee's shot in Memphis. It was the same situation. They didn't start the clock when Lee first touched it. While the NBA says .03 is enough time to catch and shoot (basically a tip), Lee didn't necessarily do that. He caught it somewhat low and was in contact with the ball longer than a tip or quick catch and shoot because he had to rotate it up toward the basket like a layup. .03 easily expired from the time he touched then released it. He only "appeared" to get it off in time because the clock didn't start on time. Just like last night.
So why wasn't the same ruling made? That's what baffles me.
While I'm certainly happy the Kings finally got over on a game-decided ruling, it does irritate me because I don't understand why the same thing didn't happen a few years ago on Courtney Lee's shot in Memphis. It was the same situation. They didn't start the clock when Lee first touched it. While the NBA says .03 is enough time to catch and shoot (basically a tip), Lee didn't necessarily do that. He caught it somewhat low and was in contact with the ball longer than a tip or quick catch and shoot because he had to rotate it up toward the basket like a layup. .03 easily expired from the time he touched then released it. He only "appeared" to get it off in time because the clock didn't start on time. Just like last night.
So why wasn't the same ruling made? That's what baffles me.
Last edited:
I think the play should have been replayed over for the fact that Ross would have shot the ball sooner if he knew there was less time on the clock. It's not up to him to start his own internal clock once the ball is inbounded. If the clock isn't correct as the play is being made, then the play shouldn't count. I'd be pissed if I was a Raptors fan for sure.
As a Kings fan, not so much because I'm still bitter about some things that happened about 15 years ago against the Lakers in the playoffs. Not sure if anyone remembers that stuff.
As a Kings fan, not so much because I'm still bitter about some things that happened about 15 years ago against the Lakers in the playoffs. Not sure if anyone remembers that stuff.
Hence why I said if anything. The following is copied from another poster on another board...
If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I - a (5) [clock malfunction] above, the offi- cials would review the video to determine the following issues:
(1) The proper time (if any) on the game clock following the clock malfunction by determining how much time on the game clock actually expired.
(2) For a successful field goal, whether the ball left the shooter’s hand prior to the expiration of actual time.
(3) Whether a called foul that is not committed on or by a player in the act of shoot- ing occurred prior to the expiration of actual time.
(4) For a called foul that is committed on or by a player in the act of shooting: (i) whether the foul occurred prior to the expiration of actual time; or (ii) whether the shooter released the ball prior to the expiration of actual time if the foul occurred after the expiration of actual time. The officials may also review the video to determine only the following other matters:
(5) If the shot was timely, whether the successful field goal was scored correctly as a 2-point or 3-point field goal or, in the case of a shooting foul, whether the shooter fouled was attempting a 2-point or 3-point field goal.
(6) If the shot was timely, whether the shooter committed a boundary line violation or the ball touched out-of-bounds prior to entering the basket or, in the case of a foul, whether the player fouled committed a boundary line violation. For pur- poses of this review, the official would look only at the position of the player’s feet at the moment they last touched the floor immediately prior to (or, if applica- ble, during) the release of the shot or the foul (as applicable).
(7) Whether the 24-second clock expired before the ball left the shooter’s hand or the foul occurred.
(8) Whether an 8-second backcourt violation occurred before the ball entered the frontcourt.
(9) Whether any unsportsmanlike acts or unnecessary contact occurred.
NOTE: If time is added to the game clock:
i - The team with possession of the ball when the horn or whistle sounds will retain possession on the sideline at the nearest spot.
ii. If the ball is released on an unsuccessful field goal attempt or is loose when the horn or whistle sounds, the ball will be jumped at center circle between any two opponents in the game.
iii. If the horn or whistle sounds while a successful field goal is in flight, the oppos- ing team will inbound on the baseline as after any successful field goal.
So it seems to me that they can only replay the possession if time is added to the clock. While it may be debateable whether timekeeper error may be considered a clock malfunction, i think the refs acted within the rules. (Even though the rules are sucky)
So the rules were followed as written.
If an instant replay review is triggered as described in Section I - a (5) [clock malfunction] above, the offi- cials would review the video to determine the following issues:
(1) The proper time (if any) on the game clock following the clock malfunction by determining how much time on the game clock actually expired.
(2) For a successful field goal, whether the ball left the shooter’s hand prior to the expiration of actual time.
(3) Whether a called foul that is not committed on or by a player in the act of shoot- ing occurred prior to the expiration of actual time.
(4) For a called foul that is committed on or by a player in the act of shooting: (i) whether the foul occurred prior to the expiration of actual time; or (ii) whether the shooter released the ball prior to the expiration of actual time if the foul occurred after the expiration of actual time. The officials may also review the video to determine only the following other matters:
(5) If the shot was timely, whether the successful field goal was scored correctly as a 2-point or 3-point field goal or, in the case of a shooting foul, whether the shooter fouled was attempting a 2-point or 3-point field goal.
(6) If the shot was timely, whether the shooter committed a boundary line violation or the ball touched out-of-bounds prior to entering the basket or, in the case of a foul, whether the player fouled committed a boundary line violation. For pur- poses of this review, the official would look only at the position of the player’s feet at the moment they last touched the floor immediately prior to (or, if applica- ble, during) the release of the shot or the foul (as applicable).
(7) Whether the 24-second clock expired before the ball left the shooter’s hand or the foul occurred.
(8) Whether an 8-second backcourt violation occurred before the ball entered the frontcourt.
(9) Whether any unsportsmanlike acts or unnecessary contact occurred.
NOTE: If time is added to the game clock:
i - The team with possession of the ball when the horn or whistle sounds will retain possession on the sideline at the nearest spot.
ii. If the ball is released on an unsuccessful field goal attempt or is loose when the horn or whistle sounds, the ball will be jumped at center circle between any two opponents in the game.
iii. If the horn or whistle sounds while a successful field goal is in flight, the oppos- ing team will inbound on the baseline as after any successful field goal.
So it seems to me that they can only replay the possession if time is added to the clock. While it may be debateable whether timekeeper error may be considered a clock malfunction, i think the refs acted within the rules. (Even though the rules are sucky)
So the rules were followed as written.
Just came on here for some fun. Great win by the Kings, your defense was awesome tonight and it was nice to see the whole team working together, especially for a team considered to be dysfunctional, this must be refereshing for you guys.
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
But actually no, that point is not refuted. Cousins rebounds the ball at 27.3 and the Kings call time out at 26.2, meaning the shot clock runs down to 23. If my math is correct (it is) 26.2-23=3.2, meaning there should have been more time on the clock.
On top of that, The clock starts 0.5 seconds before Ross touches the ball anyways. Ross gets off the shot with 0.5 seconds left. That's a full second (honestly maybe more) that you gotta take off the game clock to disallow the shot. There's just no way I'm buying that, especially considering there should have been at least 0.8 more seconds on the clock anyways. Even if by some loophole both of the other points I made don't apply, There's no way Ross can know there is a clock malfunction. And calling a game because of a clock malfunction sets a ridculous precedent for the future, where the home team can always start the clock a little late to mess with last second shots. At best the shot should have counted, at worst they should have replayed the possession.
To be clear I'm not salty. Honestly, the Kings deserved this win the way you guys played (I really don't know why we can never beat you
). But this was a completly bogus call. I know you Kings fans can sympathise with poor officiating right?
Actually, by the rules of the game, you are incorrect. The game clock is not the same as the shot clock. The game clock, on a free-throw rebound, starts the moment the ball touches a player's hand. In this case, the game clock should have started when the ball was initially batted into the air by Cousins. The game clock did not start as it should have though. It was a full second late.
The shot clock, on the other hand by rule, starts only after a player has full possession of the ball. This is a somewhat subjective call by a ref, of course, but typically they wait until any scrum for the ball has been resolved and one player has clear possession. If you review the rebound by Cousins you will see that he was actually fighting for possession initially until he swung his arms to the left with the ball, when possession and the time out was awarded. So had the clock been correct at the end of the rebound, there should have been another second off the game, and the Raptors would have had only 1.4 seconds or so to inbound.
I find it hilarious proof of bias against the Kings that the whole NBA fandom apparently cries for Toronto when something goes the Kings way, but there were MULTIPLE reasons why the Raptors should have lost the end of that game. (Not the least of which was their horrid second half play leading up to that)
* 2.5 seconds went by between Cuz touching the ball and the shot leaving Ross' hands.
* Lowry stiff-arms Temple in an obvious offensive foul.
* Patterson is bear-hugging Collison in an obvious illegal screen.
* 2.5 seconds went by between Cuz touching the ball and the shot leaving Ross' hands.
* Lowry stiff-arms Temple in an obvious offensive foul.
* Patterson is bear-hugging Collison in an obvious illegal screen.
Regarding whether Lee got the shot off in 0.3, they may not have had the technology available now to explicitly time things based on first touch. And even so, watching that one over and over at the time, despite the little flip it did look like Lee got it off very quickly. At the time, I didn't think that the shot would be overturned based on Lee holding it too long - it was too close of a call for me.
I did think they would overturn on the basis of Hollins tipping it, but they apparently ruled that it was not definitive that Hollins touched it.
I did think they would overturn on the basis of Hollins tipping it, but they apparently ruled that it was not definitive that Hollins touched it.
Maybe Coach should have realized after that Kings vs Memphis game a few years back (which he was the Memphis coach), that if you need a player to hit the rim, with just a few seconds left on the clock, maybe you should give the ball to someone else besides Darren in the final seconds.
Rewind to that Memphis vs Kings game 2 years ago and the Kings lost with 0.3 seconds left on the clock because D.C. could not hit the rim on his 2nd free throw attempt. If he had, Memphis would not of had time to catch and shoot that final fatal shot.
IF D.C. would have just hit the rim with the last shot yesterday, the Raptors would of not of had 2.4 seconds to get off the final shot, more like 1.4 seconds or less.
Lesson learned, give the ball to anyone else than D.C. if you need to draw iron on a last second shot!
Rewind to that Memphis vs Kings game 2 years ago and the Kings lost with 0.3 seconds left on the clock because D.C. could not hit the rim on his 2nd free throw attempt. If he had, Memphis would not of had time to catch and shoot that final fatal shot.
IF D.C. would have just hit the rim with the last shot yesterday, the Raptors would of not of had 2.4 seconds to get off the final shot, more like 1.4 seconds or less.
Lesson learned, give the ball to anyone else than D.C. if you need to draw iron on a last second shot!
Point taken -- but I just don't see how they wouldn't have had it just 2 seasons ago. But perhaps you are correct.
Regarding his flip, since the NBA has explicitly stated that .03 is just enough time for a tip or immediate catch and shoot, it stands to reason that you can't do anything else with the ball in your possession ie redirect it in the manner Lee did. There's no chance you could catch then swing it upward within .03.
In the catch and shoot scenario, you really have to have the ball in proper position already (no adjustments like bringing the ball from waist or chest level to above your head). You couldn't make any adjustment whatsoever. That's what Lee did on his alley oop because it wasn't in the right spot. He had to corral and redirect it hence he was in contact with the ball for much longer than a tip or catch and shoot where the ball doesn't have to brought into proper position prior to release.
No chance he got that off in time. In fact, if you watch the reply -- the time didn't even start to tick until after he released it. Moot point now, obviously, but it did irritate me with regard to last night's decision.
Regarding his flip, since the NBA has explicitly stated that .03 is just enough time for a tip or immediate catch and shoot, it stands to reason that you can't do anything else with the ball in your possession ie redirect it in the manner Lee did. There's no chance you could catch then swing it upward within .03.
In the catch and shoot scenario, you really have to have the ball in proper position already (no adjustments like bringing the ball from waist or chest level to above your head). You couldn't make any adjustment whatsoever. That's what Lee did on his alley oop because it wasn't in the right spot. He had to corral and redirect it hence he was in contact with the ball for much longer than a tip or catch and shoot where the ball doesn't have to brought into proper position prior to release.
No chance he got that off in time. In fact, if you watch the reply -- the time didn't even start to tick until after he released it. Moot point now, obviously, but it did irritate me with regard to last night's decision.
In fairness to Darren, I don't think he or Coach Joerger expected to have to take a 35 footer. I think everybody expected the Raptors to foul at some point once they didn't get the steal.
While it obviously worked out for them with regard to having a chance at another possession, it was actually a low percentage decision (not to foul) because all the Kings had to do was hit the rim and the game was over.
Had Darren taken a typical jump shot and not hit rim, I'd be a harder on him -- but a lot of guys would have airmailed that shot the way the play unfolded.
While it obviously worked out for them with regard to having a chance at another possession, it was actually a low percentage decision (not to foul) because all the Kings had to do was hit the rim and the game was over.
Had Darren taken a typical jump shot and not hit rim, I'd be a harder on him -- but a lot of guys would have airmailed that shot the way the play unfolded.
Why would the Raptors foul?
They would of had around 2 seconds left on the clock and only a 3 point deficit by playing straight defense and getting a stop.
Darren should have tried to drive to the basket when the shot clock was winding down, to at least try and draw a foul. Standing and dribbling it 35 feet away from the basket and chucking a 35 footer is a no win situation for the Kings. You still need at least one more point to seal the game.
They would of had around 2 seconds left on the clock and only a 3 point deficit by playing straight defense and getting a stop.
Darren should have tried to drive to the basket when the shot clock was winding down, to at least try and draw a foul. Standing and dribbling it 35 feet away from the basket and chucking a 35 footer is a no win situation for the Kings. You still need at least one more point to seal the game.