Can the Kings Protest?

Would it be better to protest on the grounds that the clock never started from the point caught the ball to he point the ball was released? This is more clear than the tip and should be labeled a clock malfunction.
 
Didn't at first, but I now have the feeling that the NBA is going to make an unprecedented decision...and overturn this. As a statement that they are fully behind their replay center project and will do everything to get these types of plays correct
 
jaysutton2003 said:
Would it be better to protest on the grounds that the clock never started from the point caught the ball to he point the ball was released? This is more clear than the tip and should be labeled a clock malfunction.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. The clock never starts on time because there is a human who presses a button once contact is made with the ball by someone on the court. Even the protest that it took more than 0.3 seconds to shoot will be a difficult sell, because they don't base it on how long the player actually had the ball.
 
uolj said:
No, I don't think so. The clock never starts on time because there is a human who presses a button once contact is made with the ball by someone on the court. Even the protest that it took more than 0.3 seconds to shoot will be a difficult sell, because they don't base it on how long the player actually had the ball.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of adding a technology advancement like this replay center, a move to remove the human error element?

I'm not sure exactly what their current rules state, but I was assuming that's exactly what this replay center is for? Since when we're dealing with fractions of a second, such as the difference between .2 and .3 seconds, it's impossible for any human to come close to a high percentage of accuracy
 
Partly, yes. But I don't know if that's been applied to timing issues like this one, yet. (Maybe it has been but I'm not aware of it.)

It's the right way to go, of course. If you can use video to clearly time how long a ball is in someone's hand, there's no reason you couldn't always use that for all last second shots (any possession under 1 second for example). I believe they'd have to make that an official policy first, though.
 
uolj said:
No, I don't think so. The clock never starts on time because there is a human who presses a button once contact is made with the ball by someone on the court. Even the protest that it took more than 0.3 seconds to shoot will be a difficult sell, because they don't base it on how long the player actually had the ball.
Click to expand...

I think that the timing aspect will definitely be hard to sell. The NBA rulebook says this (emphasis in original):

NO LESS THAN :00.3 must expire on the game clock when a player secures possession of an inbounds pass and then attempts a field goal. If less than :00.3 expires in such a situation, the timer will be instructed to deduct AT LEAST :00.3 from the game clock. If less than :00.3 remain on the game clock when this situation occurs, the period is over, and the field goal attempt will be disallowed immediately whether successful or unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

A player is clearly allowed to "secure possession" and shoot in 0.3 seconds. Whether Lee got it off this quickly is unclear. I read on STR that the Kings apparently believe that Lee took 0.377 seconds, so presumably part of their appeal to the league has argued this. (Note: this is a bizarre number because it does not correspond to any realistic number of frames at any realistic frame rate. At 24 fps 9 frames would be 0.375 seconds, so 0.377 may be a typo.) At any rate, the Kings are in this case essentially arguing that Lee took *less* than 0.4 seconds. The NBA is not going to award us a win on rounding error. Lee is allowed to secure possession and shoot, he appears to have tried to shoot as soon as possible, and even the team arguing says he took less than 0.4 seconds to secure and shoot. The clock (as regards Lee) is a no-go on this one. The protest can only win on the Hollins tip.
 
Yeah, that was my feeling as well. Even if technically a 0.377 second possession should not have counted, that's just not how they handle these situations. The tip, on the other hand, is much less subjective. If Hollins touched it, shot don't count. Still a longshot to be overturned because they always just leave referee mistakes as part of the game, but it's a much better shot than pointing out the 0.377 seconds.
 
I can see this going either way, but IF the NBA does act to reverse the call they will likely do it before the Nov 30 game against the Grizz. I can't see them simply calling the play and giving the Kings the win. But they might say that since the clock did not start on time the refs should have called off the hoop and ran the last .3 over... So we might see a redux of the "game before the game" the Hawks and Heat played in 08.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, that doesn't make sense to me to redo the play. Either the basket was good or it wasn't. Either way, the game should be over. It's not like the 2008 game where the last minute was played without Shaq because of the official scorer's error, so they had to redo it. Here you just make a call one way or the other and the game is still over.
 
If this thing gets over-turned, it would be good for the Kings this one game, but I think that it would be a terrible precedent for the league.

It is all so crazy close that I think that you should allow the humans in striped shirts to decide the game in real time. Bad calls happen. I am wiling to live with it over waiting weeks to see who won a game. And this was not really even a bad call in the traditional usage of the term. This was an incredibly close call that could have gone either way.

Could you imagine this situation if it were a game 7?

"hold on to your hats fans, we will let you know in 2-3 weeks who really won the game."
 
ShastaKingsFan said:
Isn't the point of adding a technology advancement like this replay center, a move to remove the human error element?

I'm not sure exactly what their current rules state, but I was assuming that's exactly what this replay center is for? Since when we're dealing with fractions of a second, such as the difference between .2 and .3 seconds, it's impossible for any human to come close to a high percentage of accuracy
Click to expand...

exactly.
If we're talking about the same game with no replay available then ill give anyone who brings up "well it was a human hand starting the shot clock." the argument.
If your gonna have replay then GET IT RIGHT. Or get rid of it. Thats why I think the NBA might overturn the Griz win.
 
kupman said:
If this thing gets over-turned, it would be good for the Kings this one game, but I think that it would be a terrible precedent for the league.

It is all so crazy close that I think that you should allow the humans in striped shirts to decide the game in real time. Bad calls happen. I am wiling to live with it over waiting weeks to see who won a game. And this was not really even a bad call in the traditional usage of the term. This was an incredibly close call that could have gone either way.

Could you imagine this situation if it were a game 7?

"hold on to your hats fans, we will let you know in 2-3 weeks who really won the game."
Click to expand...

Bad to set the precedent of getting it right? Huh?
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I think that the timing aspect will definitely be hard to sell. The NBA rulebook says this (emphasis in original):



A player is clearly allowed to "secure possession" and shoot in 0.3 seconds. Whether Lee got it off this quickly is unclear. I read on STR that the Kings apparently believe that Lee took 0.377 seconds, so presumably part of their appeal to the league has argued this. (Note: this is a bizarre number because it does not correspond to any realistic number of frames at any realistic frame rate. At 24 fps 9 frames would be 0.375 seconds, so 0.377 may be a typo.) At any rate, the Kings are in this case essentially arguing that Lee took *less* than 0.4 seconds. The NBA is not going to award us a win on rounding error. Lee is allowed to secure possession and shoot, he appears to have tried to shoot as soon as possible, and even the team arguing says he took less than 0.4 seconds to secure and shoot. The clock (as regards Lee) is a no-go on this one. The protest can only win on the Hollins tip.
Click to expand...

I believe he did more than just "secure possession" and shoot. To my eye, he made a 'slight' move in the air with the ball...beyond just "securing it"
 
uolj said:
I don't know, that doesn't make sense to me to redo the play. Either the basket was good or it wasn't. Either way, the game should be over. It's not like the 2008 game where the last minute was played without Shaq because of the official scorer's error, so they had to redo it. Here you just make a call one way or the other and the game is still over.
Click to expand...
Actually this issue is did the clock start on time or not. Typically when the clock starts late and refs agree it did they put the time back on the clock and start again. This would be the same thing. NBA does not directly take the win away from Memphis, they follow existing precedents and acknowledge a clear mistake. Seems the path of least resistance to me. (assuming the NBA does not take the VERY least resistant path of saying, "ya, bad call. Game stands.")
 
HndsmCelt said:
Actually this issue is did the clock start on time or not. Typically when the clock starts late and refs agree it did they put the time back on the clock and start again. This would be the same thing. NBA does not directly take the win away from Memphis, they follow existing precedents and acknowledge a clear mistake. Seems the path of least resistance to me.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I guess if you're focusing on the clock starting late then maybe it might make sense to redo. I'm operating under the assumption that they aren't even addressing that (see previous posts). I'm assuming they're protesting the fact that it took more than 0.3 seconds after possession to shoot and the fact that Hollins tipped the ball. The clock not starting on time is expected (in my opinion) and unless it's clear that it was blatantly late I don't think it's protestable.
 
The ball was tipped for sure....there are videos showing the ball spinning to left they have a chance to win the protest. My sf giants won a protest this season so it does happen in professional sports
 
uolj said:
Ahh, I guess if you're focusing on the clock starting late then maybe it might make sense to redo. I'm operating under the assumption that they aren't even addressing that (see previous posts). I'm assuming they're protesting the fact that it took more than 0.3 seconds after possession to shoot and the fact that Hollins tipped the ball. The clock not starting on time is expected (in my opinion) and unless it's clear that it was blatantly late I don't think it's protestable.
Click to expand...
I get you but really either way the issue is WHEN should the clack have started; when Hollins tipped it (if he did)? If not then when Lee catches it, either way it's a late clock.
 
uolj said:
Ahh, I guess if you're focusing on the clock starting late then maybe it might make sense to redo. I'm operating under the assumption that they aren't even addressing that (see previous posts). I'm assuming they're protesting the fact that it took more than 0.3 seconds after possession to shoot and the fact that Hollins tipped the ball. The clock not starting on time is expected (in my opinion) and unless it's clear that it was blatantly late I don't think it's protestable.
Click to expand...

It appears they are protesting the clock, indicated by them stating their belief from their evidence, that it took exactly .377 seconds
 
ShastaKingsFan said:
I believe he did more than just "secure possession" and shoot. To my eye, he made a 'slight' move in the air with the ball...beyond just "securing it"
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe. I mean, I watched it a ton of times trying to convince myself that Lee held on too long, but I really just ended up convincing myself that he probably shot it as quickly as possible. If the NBA defines 0.3 seconds as "possible" and Lee shot as quickly as possible, and even the Kings argue it took under 0.4 seconds...I just can't see the protest being upheld on the timing of Lee's catch and shoot. If that was all we had going for us, I would be very pessimistic (like under 5% that we could get it overturned).

The key here is the Ryan Hollins tip. Hollins knows he tipped it, we know he tipped it, the NBA knows he tipped it, and there's pretty much indisputable evidence that he tipped it. In this situation a tip means by rule the clock starts and by rule we win.

The real question is how the NBA is going to deal with this considering the major social media push which is allowing the general public to see that Hollins did in fact tip the ball. They don't have too many options on what to do, so let's run through them.

1) Deny the protest without explanation. This will not look good. Closing your eyes and looking the other way is not going to win any points.
2) Deny the protest by claiming that the evidence is inconclusive. Given that some of the evidence looks very conclusive, this is also a bad play.
3) Deny the protest by admitting that Hollins tipped the ball, but saying that the officials did not have access to conclusive evidence at the time.
4) Uphold the protest and overturn the game result.

Options 1 and 2 are just not going to fly. While Memphis fans would be happy, general NBA fans (and especially Sacramento fans) would cry foul. Option 4, on the other hand, would make Sacramento fans happy, Memphis fans upset, but would generally sit well with the remainder of the NBA fanbase. However, the NBA would have to admit a mistake and change a game result, which they are certainly not inclined to do.

That leaves option 3. Memphis is happy. General NBA fans can probably swallow it without much complaint because it doesn't concern them. The only concern is addressing this Sacramento objection: What is the point of allowing a protest, if you admit the wrong call was made but you don't do anything about it? In essence, they would have to rule that Sacramento's protest was not allowed under protest rules - for instance they could say that protests are allowed for issues of rule interpretation but not instances of referee error. Certainly the NBA would NEVER allow a protest on a foul call (or non-call) that decided a game.

So this is what I think will probably happen. The NBA will decline the protest and release a statement that is basically the following: "The end of the Sacramento/Memphis game involved a judgment call by the officials. The officials used the replay system and all of the evidence available to them before carefully rendering a decision. They decided that the evidence was inconclusive. After the game was over, attention was brought to evidence that suggests strongly that the officials' call was incorrect. However, this evidence was not available to the officials at the time. Unfortunately, NBA rules do not allow protests to be filed on the basis of judgment calls, so the Sacramento protest is invalid and the game result is unchanged."

That's what I think is going to happen. I suppose that there's a chance (maybe 25% at best) that the NBA will overturn the call, but most likely they say "can't protest a judgment call" and move on.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Yeah, maybe. I mean, I watched it a ton of times trying to convince myself that Lee held on too long, but I really just ended up convincing myself that he probably shot it as quickly as possible. If the NBA defines 0.3 seconds as "possible" and Lee shot as quickly as possible, and even the Kings argue it took under 0.4 seconds...I just can't see the protest being upheld on the timing of Lee's catch and shoot. If that was all we had going for us, I would be very pessimistic (like under 5% that we could get it overturned).

The key here is the Ryan Hollins tip. Hollins knows he tipped it, we know he tipped it, the NBA knows he tipped it, and there's pretty much indisputable evidence that he tipped it. In this situation a tip means by rule the clock starts and by rule we win.

The real question is how the NBA is going to deal with this considering the major social media push which is allowing the general public to see that Hollins did in fact tip the ball. They don't have too many options on what to do, so let's run through them.

1) Deny the protest without explanation. This will not look good. Closing your eyes and looking the other way is not going to win any points.
2) Deny the protest by claiming that the evidence is inconclusive. Given that some of the evidence looks very conclusive, this is also a bad play.
3) Deny the protest by admitting that Hollins tipped the ball, but saying that the officials did not have access to conclusive evidence at the time.
4) Uphold the protest and overturn the game result.

Options 1 and 2 are just not going to fly. While Memphis fans would be happy, general NBA fans (and especially Sacramento fans) would cry foul. Option 4, on the other hand, would make Sacramento fans happy, Memphis fans upset, but would generally sit well with the remainder of the NBA fanbase. However, the NBA would have to admit a mistake and change a game result, which they are certainly not inclined to do.

That leaves option 3. Memphis is happy. General NBA fans can probably swallow it without much complaint because it doesn't concern them. The only concern is addressing this Sacramento objection: What is the point of allowing a protest, if you admit the wrong call was made but you don't do anything about it? In essence, they would have to rule that Sacramento's protest was not allowed under protest rules - for instance they could say that protests are allowed for issues of rule interpretation but not instances of referee error. Certainly the NBA would NEVER allow a protest on a foul call (or non-call) that decided a game.

So this is what I think will probably happen. The NBA will decline the protest and release a statement that is basically the following: "The end of the Sacramento/Memphis game involved a judgment call by the officials. The officials used the replay system and all of the evidence available to them before carefully rendering a decision. They decided that the evidence was inconclusive. After the game was over, attention was brought to evidence that suggests strongly that the officials' call was incorrect. However, this evidence was not available to the officials at the time. Unfortunately, NBA rules do not allow protests to be filed on the basis of judgment calls, so the Sacramento protest is invalid and the game result is unchanged."

That's what I think is going to happen. I suppose that there's a chance (maybe 25% at best) that the NBA will overturn the call, but most likely they say "can't protest a judgment call" and move on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I also think option 3 is going to be what it comes down to. Your quoted statement is probably going to be pretty close the NBA statement. But we shall see.
 
Hallama said:
I wish Hollins would've sold it a little better...
Click to expand...

I think he was in a state of shock. He hadn't played at all, was thrown in there at the last second under some "great excitement" for the moment, everything happened so fast, turned around and witnessed a shocking wide open player at the rim....and it barely grazed a "non tactile" part of his hand (not fingers)
 
ShastaKingsFan said:
I think he was in a state of shock. He hadn't played at all, was thrown in there at the last second under some "great excitement" for the moment, everything happened so fast, turned around and witnessed a shocking wide open player at the rim....and it barely grazed a "non tactile" part of his hand (not fingers)
Click to expand...
You know, it's interesting the way the ball changed course after he (did) tip it. The way the ball was originally headed, it may have hit the rim or made Lee adjust even more.

Regardless, in that situation you have a guy that just stands by the rim no matter what. Hopefully Malone has learned from it.
 
The Kings' broadcast showed Hollins tipped the ball. What exactly are the refs looking at? Do they have access to only the home team's video feed?
 
If anything, this is a publicity stunt for the Kings Organization. I think it's more of a publicity stunt than it is to get the win; if we get the W, it's just the cherry on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SLAB
Domas is who they thought he was.
2 3 4
Replies
117
Views
4K
upinsmoke
upinsmoke
Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
6
Views
436
Siranthony
S
Mike0476
Business Trip #2: Kings at Clippers on 3/9
Replies
0
Views
708
Mike0476
Mike0476
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Kings vs. Timberwolves 10/24/2024 7pm Pacific 10pm Eastern
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
14K
joemama
J
hrdboild
Can We Show Some Love for Davion?
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
9K
midtowner
M
Back
Top