I was amazed when reading this article (link below) that the Spurs and apparently the Rockets thought that last shot would have counted--the three pointer by Bonner with .3 seconds left. Obviously, if such a shot would have went in, it would have been the most devastating regular season loss in a very long time for the Rockets. It didn't go in, so I know it is a moot point. Yet, I would think that even if the players didn't understand the situation the media would. Actually, I am surprised the Spurs would call such a play considering the rules state you must have .4 seconds on the clock to execute a catch and shoot. This article claimed the shot would have counted because replays showed clearly the ball was gone with .1 seconds left. Quoted from the article: "Replays showed the ball clearly out of Bonner's hand with one-tenth remaining." I cannot imagine the uproar from the Rockets, if they would have been expected to except that Bonner (or any human being) could catch and shoot a ball in .2 seconds. It is absurd and that is exactly why they have the .4 second rule. But I don't understand why the San Antonio media can't get their facts straight. Is it better to believe you were just that close to winning? This article seems to portray that sense. But it is just as funny to me that they (with Scola's help) play up Scola's botched missed free throw as it if added some significant drama to the game. Unless, the Spurs had a clever tip in play up their sleeves, then Scola's botched free throw shooting was completely irrelevant. Here's the link. http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Spurs_unable_to_cash_in_on_final-play_option.html FWIW, both Feigen and Blinebury seem to understand that the shot wouldn't have counted. Maybe they can inform the ignorant colleagues to the west. Again, not a huge deal, but interesting.
I think .4 sec rule applies in college but the .3 sec rule applies in the NBA. Unless it's been changed, it was called the Trent Tucker rule for the NY Knick that made a game winner with .1 sec left on the clock. All those numbers live amid the millions of others in the NBA Register. But Trent Tucker’s true legacy is found on page 55 of the NBA Rule Book: Heading, “Comments on the Rules”, subhead, “Expiration of Time”: “The game clock must show :00.3 or more in order for a player to secure possession of the ball on a rebound or throw-in to attempt a field goal... The only type of field goal which may be scored if the game clock is at :00.2 or :00.1 is a `tip-in’ or `high lob’. “A tip-in is defined as any action in which the ball is deflected, not controlled, by a player and then enters the basket ring. This type of action shall be deemed legal if :00.1 or more remains in the period. A high lob is defined as a pass which is tipped by an offensive player while in mid-air, and if followed instantaneously by a field goal attempt.”
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_l.html?nav=ArticleList It actually looks like they only disallow a shot attempt by default if it's LESS THAN 0.3 on the clock. So maybe Bonner's shot could have been allowed depending on the personal judgment of the officials and/or replay...?
I just saw that other thread about whether the shot should have counted and supposedly Bavetta told Battier they waved it off. There is some subjectivity involved in the call, for a shot to be allowed it has to be shot as soon as it hits the players hand. If the player squares up, bends his knees and then takes the shot it's not going to count. I think thats what Bonner did.
spurs can turn the clock slower, that's why they have rejuvenated and still stay in the playoff range with such an antique squad.
That's why it's called home court advantage, and I'm still not over Brandon Roy's buzzer beater in Portland.
Total nonsense. Anyone who thinks that from the time that ball touched Bonner's fingers to when it totally left his hands was anything less than half a second is crazy. It's crazy, it really is.
Whether it would have counted or not, thank God it did not go in. That would have been nonsense...a scrub like Bonner beating us. We played too hard for that to happen.
it would have counted. .3 seconds left - and the reply shows he got it off on time. The refs can't do anything about that. Rockets would have a right to be furious...but what was bonner doing so open????
Isn't it an NBA *rule* that any shot taken with less than .4 seconds left on an inbound pass cannot be counted?
For someone so declarative, you may want to actually look up the rule next time, so as to not make yourself look so foolish.
0.03? Really? What is this, Track and Field? It was 0.4 seconds left, and it was 5 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7Z1Pq2s5I
It wouldn't have counted, no matter what. There's no way a player can catch and shoot like Bonner did in .3 seconds.
As someone pointed out above - it's only less than 0.3 seconds left, so the rule doesn't apply here. The shot would have counted by the rules. Don't think the refs could have done anything about it even with a late clock start.
.3 seconds is definitely not long enough to get a shot off. I can understand being able to tip it in, but the shot yesterday took much longer than .3 seconds. When they showed the replay of the shot the clock didnt even start until halfway through bonners shooting motion. If that shot would have gone in and we would have lost the game because the dude running the clock didnt start it right when bonner touched the ball for the second time this season (Roy's "buzzer beater"), I would have been so pissed. If the rule is you can get a shot off with .3 remaining, then the rule needs to be changed because that is ridiculous and not possible by any means besides a tip in.
I might be wrong about the rule--it seems you can catch and shoot with .3 seconds, but I'm pretty sure Fisher had 0.4 seconds. I don't think you really meant .03. Three one hundreths of a second is getting into Michael Phelp's winning margin territory. If you watched the Olympics you know what I'm talking about.
