How can Fisher 1. Receive the ball, 2. Jump, 3. Fade away, 4. Shoot

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

All within 0.4 seconds if the clock man didn't start the clock late?

this is absurb.... it looked like 0.8 secs to me...

Ladeda · May 13, 2004

After seeing the replay many times it looks legit. Just goes to show how much can happen is less thena half of second. Men can run over 10 yards in less then a second.

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

it LOOKED fine...

what i'm saying is that the clockman was late for fraction of a second...

dr.chau · May 13, 2004

And this happened on Spurs homecourt, the timekeeper won't be doing any more games there.

Ladeda · May 13, 2004

Yeah, may have been a tick slow to start. Reminds me of Baron Davis last year. Hit a shot similiar last year for three. Not sure if it counted or not but I was amazed at how little time it actually took to catch, turn in air and shoot a three.

D2bets · May 13, 2004

There's no question it was late. I estimate that the clock keeper was .3 to .4 seconds slow. Fischer got it off with .1 showing so it really took .6 or .7. Clock keeper cost SA the game. No doubt about it. Take a stopwatch and get a hold of what 0.4 feels like and you'll understand that it was slow.

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

spurs got robbed....

it was a great comeback...

you can't even say the word "shoot" in 0.4 secs...

TheMDKid · May 13, 2004

Actually, the clock keeper played no part here. The NBA has rules regarding what can and cannot be done in parts of a second. With 0.3 left, a player cannot catch and shoot. Any shot must be a tap. With 0.4 left, a player can catch and shoot, but it must be done all in one motion. No turning. With 0.5 left, something else is allowed - I forget what. The point is - Fisher did exactly what the rules allowed, and therefore the shot is good. The timekeeper actually plays no part in plays with less than a second left.

D2bets · May 13, 2004

MD, I'm sorry but are you on drugs? Those rules are basically for the MAXIMUM of what is allowed in those fractions of a second. With the 0.4, the player can catch and shoot in one motion, but if that one motion takes more than 0.4 it does not count. It did take more than 0.4 and if the keeper had started it right when he touched the ball then the clock would have reflected that, it would have been in his hands at the buzzer, the refs would have waived it off and the Spurs would have won. Period. The clock keeper played a huge part.

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

4 actions in 0.4 seconds...

yes.. if the timekeeper was a computer...

the game would be over. spurs won.

D2bets · May 13, 2004

I am sure it is possible from the tapes to determine with precision how long it took from the moment it hit his hand to the moment it last touched his hand...and I would wager big that it took 0.5 or more. 0.65 would be my guess.

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

D2bets.. i agree with you...
but the truth is...
NBA is happy w/ a lakers win.
so they won't review it..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
I am sure it is possible from the tapes to determine with precision how long it took from the moment it hit his hand to the moment it last touched his hand...and I would wager big that it took 0.5 or more. 0.65 would be my guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

it was a ****ing fadeaway jumpshot too....

so it took him 0.1 sec to catch the ball, 0.1 sec to jump, 0.1 to fade, and 0.1 to shoot?

come the **** on... it's wrong and everyone knows it...

Seven · May 13, 2004

There is only one person for all you Laker haters to blame and that is the person who was in charge of the clock. Whoever that person is, you can be sure that he won't be back next year. How the heck can you be at HOME and give up a game winning shot with .4 seconds left. Home court advantage includes having a fan of yours running the clock. So don't go and talk shit about the NBA or Refs, if you don't think it could of happend then write a letter to that dumb ass who didn't start the clock soon enough. Lakers are back, they will win game 6 by double digits and there isn't anything you guys can do to stop them. I love LA!!

IDENTITY · May 13, 2004

stop the whining already

NBAlive2005 · May 13, 2004

agree...

there's no way on hell that you can start the clock RIGHT on time... not humanly possible....
unless you use a computer...

so you either start the clock EARLY. or you start LATE.

it was obvious that the SA clockman started the clock late....

SurfBoard · May 13, 2004

HAHAHAHA

LIKE SHAQ SAID, ONE LUCKY SHOT (DUNCAN'S) AFTER ANOTHER (FISHER'S)

SHACK · May 13, 2004

I must say that that was more than .4. Secondly, the Spurs had a fould to give and Ginobili should of fouled as soon as Fisher caught the ball and the clock would of (or should of been less than .3 left. It was a sorry display by the scorekeeper and bad execution by the Spurs D not to foul before they got the shot attempt.
This entire playoffs no team has made a last second shot tie or win a game and this game had two great last second shots.

wilheim · May 13, 2004

Good point Shack, Spurs are supposed to foul instantly, but I quess that is almost impossible in less than half a second. The real culprit is the rule that punishes a great basket by Duncan by letting a time out take the ball all the way into the front court for in-bounding. I have never liked that rule, and I was rooting hard for the Lakers to win on the floor tonight.

wil.

winkyduck · May 13, 2004

spurs filed a protest saying the same thing.

i got some bad news for them - NOT gonna win that one!

put this in stone - there is NO WAY the result of thisgame gets overturned. if anyone should filed a protest it shoulda been the lakers for getting short changed 1/10th to 2/10th of a second after duncan's shot!