Speaking physics the ball had to have hit the rim

[markketch]

It needs to be common to the point that a hard-core basketball fan who has been involved in the game for 2 decades, like myself, isn't reading that suggestion for the 1st time.

So let me ask you this: last year in the Pistons-Magic series, there was an issue where the game clock failed to start for about a second. As a direct result of that play, the NBA added a provision that allowed officials to check instant replay to see when the play actually started.

Excluding that play, can you think of another instance where the clock faltered at the end of the game? My guess is it'll be hard for you to think of one (I'm hard pressed to think of one), and I'd say that "up in the air" 24 second violations occur far more often than that.

What about the whole 6 on 5 fiasco against the Blazers?  That happens very rarely, yet the NBA amended that rule. In fact, I cannot think of another instance of that happening.

So my point is that the NBA responded to two very specific plays in the last year that are not very common. Why shouldn't they respond in a similar fashion here?

*typo

[CelticsWhat35]

It needs to be common to the point that a hard-core basketball fan who has been involved in the game for 2 decades, like myself, isn't reading that suggestion for the 1st time.

So let me ask you this: last year in the Pistons-Celtics series, there was an issue where the game clock failed to start for about a second. As a direct result of that play, the NBA added a provision that allowed officials to check instant replay to see when the play actually started.

It was actually the Pistons-Magic series, and it wasn't a second.  I think it was a good 5 seconds before the clock started, and Billups ended up hitting a three before the buzzer, but well after what should've been the end of the quarter.  But I get your point.  Maybe the league will make a change to that rule, but the refs made the call correctly.  I'm not saying they made the right call.  I think it hit the rim, but their are other angles that make me skeptical.  But if one of the refs said it hit the rim, then the rule is to give it side out to the Celtics, because they had possession.

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

a ball with that back-to-the-right english on it, would not drop down to the right of the rim if it hit the net.

It just wouldn't. It would have went through the net or dropped straight to straight-forward.

It dropped down and to the right to perkins because the backspin caught the bottom of the rim on the top of the ball.

Just clearing it up.

I'm sorry but for barely getting any calls all night we really deserved that one. I don't care if the ball hit the rim or not that call was ours. From the opening 2 posessions (Pierce fouled going to the rim not called, Rondo same thing) to the various moving picks by Howard to JJ Reddick throwing elbows trying to fight through screens...we deserved that one.

[markketch]

I think it was a good 5 seconds before the clock started, and Billups ended up hitting a three before the buzzer, but well after what should've been the end of the quarter.

Just for clarification, the Pistons did not get an extra 5 seconds on the shot clock, rather it was a delay of .6 seconds.  Detroit took the ball out of bounds with 5.1 seconds left, but the clock stopped at 4.8 and again at 4.1 before Billups made the 3-point shot. That's a delay of .6 seconds.

Official quote from the league below:

After reviewing the video of last night’s Pistons-Magic game, we determined that the play that concluded with Chauncey Billups’ three-point field goal at the end of the third quarter took approximately 5.7 seconds. Because there were only 5.1 seconds remaining in the quarter when the play began, the shot would not have counted had the clock continued to run.

[goz421]

Perk is either really smart and sold that or he clearly saw it hit.  From the replay i would say it didn't.  Yet, I don't think Perk is the type of player who would have reacted had it not.

As for the toe on the line.  In Chicago series Gordon's three was clearly a three.  They gave points to the team, didn't take them away.  They can't go back and review every ref mistake.  That would open a whole can of worms.  Boston had several missed calls as well, The travel on Superman.  The fantom foul on Perk.  The list could go one.  You can find stuff like this in every game.  refs are not perfect.  let it go Orlando.

[CelticsWhat35]

I think it was a good 5 seconds before the clock started, and Billups ended up hitting a three before the buzzer, but well after what should've been the end of the quarter.

Just for clarification, the Pistons did not get an extra 5 seconds on the shot clock, rather it was a delay of .6 seconds.  Detroit took the ball out of bounds with 5.1 seconds left, but the clock stopped at 4.8 and again at 4.1 before Billups made the 3-point shot. That's a delay of .6 seconds.

Official quote from the league below:

After reviewing the video of last night’s Pistons-Magic game, we determined that the play that concluded with Chauncey Billups’ three-point field goal at the end of the third quarter took approximately 5.7 seconds. Because there were only 5.1 seconds remaining in the quarter when the play began, the shot would not have counted had the clock continued to run.

You're right.  I just watched the replay.  I think I was thinking because the clock never kept going once it stopped at 4.1 seconds.  So instead of the buzzer sounding before Billups' shot, he hit it and there were still 4.1 seconds left.  But in real time, the shot did only take just less than a second more to get off.

[dlpin]

It needs to be common to the point that a hard-core basketball fan who has been involved in the game for 2 decades, like myself, isn't reading that suggestion for the 1st time.

So let me ask you this: last year in the Pistons-Magic series, there was an issue where the game clock failed to start for about a second. As a direct result of that play, the NBA added a provision that allowed officials to check instant replay to see when the play actually started.

Excluding that play, can you think of another instance where the clock faltered at the end of the game? My guess is it'll be hard for you to think of one (I'm hard pressed to think of one), and I'd say that "up in the air" 24 second violations occur far more often than that.

What about the whole 6 on 5 fiasco against the Blazers?  That happens very rarely, yet the NBA amended that rule. In fact, I cannot think of another instance of that happening.

So my point is that the NBA responded to two very specific plays in the last year that are not very common. Why shouldn't they respond in a similar fashion here?

*typo

But that is a lot more common. Heck, it happened just this week.

But, again, you don't seem to understand what I am saying: even if there was a rule that said that when the refs are truly in doubt there should be a jump ball, it would not have applied yesterday. Right or wrong, two of the three refs said they clearly saw the ball hit the rim, and the other one wasn't even sure enough of it not hitting to make an issue out of it. For them, there was no doubt. Look at the ref conference again: 2 of them are adamant it touched the rim.

[markketch]

But, again, you don't seem to understand what I am saying: even if there was a rule that said that when the refs are truly in doubt there should be a jump ball, it would not have applied yesterday. Right or wrong, two of the three refs said they clearly saw the ball hit the rim, and the other one wasn't even sure enough of it not hitting to make an issue out of it. For them, there was no doubt. Look at the ref conference again: 2 of them are adamant it touched the rim.

Despite the fact that I was addressing a different poster (cordobes), I'll respond anyways...

I've already acknowledged what you're saying, and agree that it's not what they should have done yesterday. Again - I'm referring to FUTURE INSTANCES where such a rule/review process could be implemented. You keep falling back on last night's play, when I'm talking about future happenings where a decision is not clear on whether or not a violation occured.

But that is a lot more common. Heck, it happened just this week.

What is more common? You're not very clear as to what you're addressing.

[bobdelt]

One of the refs must have clearly thought it hit the rim, which is why it wasn't a jump ball.

And I recorded the 4th quarter of the game on my computer. I've watched it a dozen times. not including the replays.

There are 3 officials, so in that case you would think 2 of them would have to agree that the ball hit the rim to overturn the call on the court. The official nearest the rim ruled that it did not hit the rim, so it came away from the ball.

The play was so close that it SHOULD have been a jump ball. The probability that one official clearly saw it hit the rim, yet that action managed to evade several replays, is highly unlikely.

You've watched it a dozen times, but you're also highly subject to rater bias.  It was in no way an obvious "yes-no" play, which is why even Celtics fans can't agree on what happened.

To definitively say it hit the rim from the replays we all saw would be silly. It's ok to admit that the Celtics were the benefactors of a very close call which appeared to be improperly overturned given the situation. The Magic still failed on several other fronts, which ultimately cost them the game.

That is just bad logic. If all three refs are looking at the ball - who is watching the rest of the court? Only one ref needs to see something to make a call.

[markketch]

That is just bad logic. If all three refs are looking at the ball - who is watching the rest of the court? Only one ref needs to see something to make a call.

Clearly all three officials saw the play, otherwise all three would not have huddled together to discuss the call. Yes, you only need one official to make a call, but that does not mean the other two didn't see anything.

What do you think went on in the discussion?

Ref 1 - "You see it hit the rim?"
Ref 2 - "I was watching Rafer on the wing."
Ref 3 - "I was looking at the release."
Ref 1 - "Well, I guess I'll make the call by myself. Good huddle, guys."

Believe it or not, as blind as they may be sometimes, officials do have the ability to focus their vision on a number of places in a few seconds. You can easily divert your focus from one area to another, while still maintaining peripheral vision of the court.

[dlpin]

But, again, you don't seem to understand what I am saying: even if there was a rule that said that when the refs are truly in doubt there should be a jump ball, it would not have applied yesterday. Right or wrong, two of the three refs said they clearly saw the ball hit the rim, and the other one wasn't even sure enough of it not hitting to make an issue out of it. For them, there was no doubt. Look at the ref conference again: 2 of them are adamant it touched the rim.

Despite the fact that I was addressing a different poster (cordobes), I'll respond anyways...

I've already acknowledged what you're saying, and agree that it's not what they should have done yesterday. Again - I'm referring to FUTURE INSTANCES where such a rule/review process could be implemented. You keep falling back on last night's play, when I'm talking about future happenings where a decision is not clear on whether or not a violation occured.

But that is a lot more common. Heck, it happened just this week.

What is more common? You're not very clear as to what you're addressing.

You keep setting up a moving target, from saying that yesterday they should have had a jumpball, to now this.

In any case, if, in the future, a situation that is exactly like what happened yesterday takes place, it still won't be a jump ball. In fact, I cannot think of any instance ever where the jump ball you claim would occur.
I remember plenty of times where they made the wrong call, and I remember a few times when a call by one ref was overturned by the other 2 (yesterday, for example). But I can't remember a single call where the refs were legitimately in doubt.

A video review would be a less controversial matter, but a jumpball is a not a solution.

[markketch]

You keep setting up a moving target, from saying that yesterday they should have had a jumpball, to now this.

If there was a rule that permitted it, then yes, I think it should have been a jump ball IF they felt the play wasn't conclusive. There is no rule, however, as we've arleady discussed.  I've addressed this topic the same way the entire time. If they saw it hit the rim, then great.  However, if there was any doubt as to what happened, I believe implementing a new rule makes perfect sense.

In any case, if, in the future, a situation that is exactly like what happened yesterday takes place, it still won't be a jump ball. In fact, I cannot think of any instance ever where the jump ball you claim would occur.

I'll try to explain it one more time. I am not talking about a situation where they arrive at a call via discussion (like yesterday). I am talking about a play where they CANNOT determine the outcome/call and would feel better suited using video replay to assist in the decision. If the video is inconclusive, it would result in a jump ball.

[dlpin]

You keep setting up a moving target, from saying that yesterday they should have had a jumpball, to now this.

If there was a rule that permitted it, then yes, I think it should have been a jump ball IF they felt the play wasn't conclusive. There is no rule, however, as we've arleady discussed.  I've addressed this topic the same way the entire time. If they saw it hit the rim, then great.  However, if there was any doubt as to what happened, I believe implementing a new rule makes perfect sense.

In any case, if, in the future, a situation that is exactly like what happened yesterday takes place, it still won't be a jump ball. In fact, I cannot think of any instance ever where the jump ball you claim would occur.

I'll try to explain it one more time. I am not talking about a situation where they arrive at a call via discussion (like yesterday). I am talking about a play where they CANNOT determine the outcome/call and would feel better suited using video replay to assist in the decision. If the video is inconclusive, it would result in a jump ball.

So you are talking about a rule change to address a situation that is unrelated to yesterday's call, and that no one can remember a single instance of where it might have happened?

Got it.

Still, I prefer the option of ref conference, if inconclusive, video replay, and if still inconclusive, the call on the court stands. A jump ball only adds an additional layer of confusion, where people would discuss not only if the call was the correct one, but whether the refs were sure enough of it not to warrant a jump ball.

And even then, these things would have a minimum impact on nba officiating. The problem with NBA officiating is not that the refs don't see what happened, but that the rules  are called inconsistently, and no video replay would change that.

[markketch]

So you are talking about a rule change to address a situation that is unrelated to yesterday's call, and that no one can remember a single instance of where it might have happened?

Got it.

How is it unrelated? It's nearly the exact same situation, yet would offer the officials a chance to consult video replay to confirm the call if there was any doubt. Something does not need to happen before it can be ruled on.  It'd be a precautionary rule to address a situation should it happen.

Still, I prefer the option of ref conference, if inconclusive, video replay, and if still inconclusive, the call on the court stands. A jump ball only adds an additional layer of confusion, where people would discuss not only if the call was the correct one, but whether the refs were sure enough of it not to warrant a jump ball.

And for plays where the is no call on the court? This is what I'm addressing. Instances where the officials make no call originally, or they are in complete disagreement (we see this happen on tipped balls all the time).  The likelihood of it happening is much higher than you want to believe. If that happens, then what? The game reaches a stalemate and we all go home?  A jump ball is not confusing, it's very logical and easy to understand. It says "well, we couldn't deterime the correct call so we're giving both teams an equal opportunity."

[twentythree9]

Look, the more important question if you are a MAGIC fan, is why didn't Howard box Perk out on that play?  If Howard was in the correct position, it wouldn't have mattered whether it hit the rim or not since he would've gotten the rebound.

While I'm at it, NO WAY Alston got any contact on his left handed lob!  Watched that numerous times.  As for Hedo's drive, it's only poetic justice given how PP in the regular season and also to start game 3 had the exact same no-call going right into Howard.  Plus, I think the reason Hedo didn't get that call was because he lost the ball while going up into Perk.  Watch the replay closely from the halfcourt side, and you'll see that ball coming loose as he's going up.  Refs NEVER give you that call if you don't have possession of the ball- no one can attest to that more than Pierce!