Catch and shoot with less than .03 or less

JeffZX

G-League
Apparently NBA announcers, including those for ABC and TNT, are not knowledgable about the rules pertaining to whether you can catch or shoot with .03 seconds or less. They should watch this video and get it right next time this situation occurs. Also, coaches should know they have the option to catch and shoot at 0.3 or less.

See the video from both the Kings and Magic coverage at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaMBW5ilNgA
 
That Reddick shot should NOT be counted...the motion of the hand catching the ball below the knee hoisting to your shoulder is already more than 1 second. The clock started late. If I put a sensor on Reddick's hand and the ball, he'll the clock could have expired when the ball is around his waistline.

0.3 seconds is a tip-in or catch and dunk!
 
Last edited:
That Reddick shot should be counted...the motion of the hand catching the ball below the knee hoisting to your shoulder is already more than 1 second. The clock started late. If I put a sensor on Reddick's hand and the ball, he'll the clock could have expired when the ball is around his waistline.

0.3 seconds is a tip-in or catch and dunk!


That is what I thought too. But not according to the three NBA referees at the Kings/Magic game. And it wasn't a matter of judgment; it was a matter of rule interpetation...that .03 and less does not necessarily eliminate a catch and shoot. Would be curious to see that reaction this call would get for the deciding basket of game 7 of the NBA finals!
 
I thought that .3 was a tip in or no basket. But the calls were pretty questionable all night. NBA officiating is probably the toughest job in the world, officiating wise. Everything moves SO FAST that these older Ref's make you think that they are not able to contend with the speed of the game and calls sometimes are made by guessing that contact was made, not actually SEEING contact being made. I think that the NBA Refs should be younger, and more able to keep up with the speed of the game. I am sure these Ref's all get physicals before the beginning of the season, but there are 2 or 3 Ref's that are WAY TOO OLD to still be in the league ref'ing games. You cant tell me that Dick Bavetta is still able to effectively referee games at his advanced age. He is the greatest example of how the NBA is not policing their refs and making sure they are physically able to perform their jobs. The NBA is the one sport that likes to keep their OLD officials around WAY past their prime. Even Baseball, which is a much slower sport has a good policy and retirement incentives for their older Refs. It is high time to weed out the Mummies in the NBA.

We need young refs with good eyesight and mobility to keep up with the ever increasing speed of the game. Until then, refs like Joe Crawford, who has been refereeing games for as long as I can remember (and I am 43) will still be ref'ing games poorly forever. I do not believe the Commissioner David Stern is concerned with the quality of the referees in the NBA. He has shown a total lack of regard for the obvious mistakes that have been made in games that have been critical. Even playoff games have been decided by poor calls in endgame situations. It is just not right to allow the refs to decide a game after 48 minutes of play. Until the Commissioner is replaced or retires, the problem will remain. If you believe Donaghy's book, the problem is not age, it's company loyalty.
 
I guess the issue was the shot clock started late. It didnt start til the ball was going up to the shooting spot. I thought I heard Grant say the ref didnt even want to see the shot clock and was only looking at the release point vs the buzzer/light.

Later ref told grant he thought the starting of the shot clock was fine.

Oh well , with 34 to 10 4th qtr, didnt make much difference huh
 
if you pause the youtube player, you can see the clock still reads 0.3 when Reddick gets the ball above his head. what a joke, even if it didn't affect the outcome very much.

i took a screenshot of my youtube player, it is pixelated but i believe you can see the shot clock and how far he's gotten the ball up before they start the clock. he caught it at knee level.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52674/0.3.png
 
Last edited:
No it shouldn't have counted, BUT we shouldn't be complaining. This happened AT HOME. There is no reason the clock shouldn't have started on time. If this had happened on the road we'd have legitimate beef. The Kings should hire me on as the new clock operater, that thing would have gone off while the ball was still in his hand, I promise! Come on Joe and Gavin, sign me up!
 
I seem to recall that there is two methods of starting the clock. One is the operator and the other is a remote that refs have. I'm not sure how it works. But I was watching the conversation Westphal was having with Joe Crawford, and it looked like he motioning a button in his pocket. So don't beat up the clock operator unless we know for sure it was him running the button at that moment.

It's clear that it doesn't take any time off the clock from the time he touches the ball until he's well into his shooting motion. Then look how fast the time runs off once it start.
 
Longest 3 tenths of a second I ever saw. Not a big deal as it turns out. But I'am kind of amazed that they wouldn't even look at the video of it. It obviously shouldn't have counted.
 
if you pause the youtube player, you can see the clock still reads 0.3 when Reddick gets the ball above his head. what a joke, even if it didn't affect the outcome very much.

i took a screenshot of my youtube player, it is pixelated but i believe you can see the shot clock and how far he's gotten the ball up before they start the clock. he caught it at knee level.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52674/0.3.png

I believe that one of the referees has a device on his belt which can start the clock as well. At home, or on the road, the ref is also responsible for starting the clock. This was simply Joey Crawford being arrogant and not wanting to spend any time on it. On a game earlier this year (I believe is was Brad Miller hitting a game winning shot) he got it off on time but the clock started late. The refs analyzed it frame by frame and CALCULATED what the clock would have been when he released it IF it started on time and it was waived off. This is clearly the refs laziness here. However ... ZERO bearing on the outcome of this game.
 
Which brings up a nit to pick with the red headed TV guy. He was singing Crawford's praises as one of the best refs. But red head should stick to the NFL because Crawford has long checkered history as a ref. As pointed out, he's arrogant and when obviously wrong he won't admit. Refs aren't perfect, but what makes a good one from a bad one is the ability to make decisions with out influence.

Crawford has been a notorius hot head since day one. He ejected Tim Duncan from a game in 2007 for laughing on the bench and then challanging Duncan to a fight. He was later suspended for this incident for the rest of the season and post season. Not anything new because he has a history of being short tempered and giving out technical fouls quickly. He has even been in counseling for his issues.

How could a guy who has all these issues be allowed to make a reversal judgement call against himself?

For my money, Earl Strom was the best there ever was as a ref. Humble, humorous and would make the right call no matter what the situation.
 
He didn't get it off in time but it didn't wind up making a difference so because it was a blow out we only have ourselves to be mad at.
 
Back
Top