I'm really getting sick and tired of watching teams get screwed out of games because David Stern hires crooked *** refs.

Well tonight we all saw it happen yet again. With 5.1 seconds remaining on the clock in the 3rd quarter Detroit had the basketball under their own hoop. They passed the ball down the court eventually getting it to Chauncy Billups for a 3 pointer. Chauncy made the shot, and while Detroit was ecstatic, Orlando realized that the clock had been started but for some reason quickly stopped again at 4.8 seconds.

They called this to the attention of the refs, who could not deny that someone messed up. In the replay it was clear as day that more than 5 seconds went off before the ball went through the net (more than 5 seconds went off before Chauncy let go of the ball, but we all know the clock doesn't stop until the ball is through the net).

Now apparently the NBA rule states that a play cannot be reviewed by the refs unless the clock shows 0.00 remaining. However, with little consulting, the refs decided to count the basket and put 0.5 seconds left on the clock. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!??!?!

#1. It was BLATANTLY obvious that at least 6 seconds took place between Detroit inbounding the ball and the ball going through the net. No question about it.

#2. TNT went back and showed it with a stopwatch going at the bottom. This had VISUAL CONFORMATION that Chauncy still had the ball in his hands after 5.2 seconds (remember the clock only had 5.1 remaining).

#3. Why the **** would the refs just pull 0.5 seconds remaining OUT OF THEIR *****. This is exactly what they did. (Hmmmm, maybe they did it so they couldn't review the play by the NBA rule I stated earlier.)

#4. No team can score with 0.5 seconds on the clock. The refs didn't even give Orlando a chance for to throw up a prayer even though they were getting screwed.

In case you didn't watch the game, this GAVE DETROIT THE LEAD. Orlando was up by 2 points before that shot. This game was neck and neck all the way down to the final few seconds of the game. This play was huge and the NBA Refs didn't give a flying **** whether or not they got this play right. In hindsight we know that the play could have very easily made a difference with such a close game. That's why I ask, why not get the call right? Isn't that what replay is for? And why in the ****, are there rules in the NBA to PREVENT such a play from getting the right call? I'm not asking for my team to get "more favorable" calls, and I'm not asking for my rival teams to get more "unfavorable" calls. I'm simply asking for the games to be called 50/50 unbiased and when a call is in question, it should be reviewed no questions asked. That's what the refs and the replays are their for; to make sure the game gets called correctly. So far the NBA has been doing a pretty **** poor job of that.

David Stern is crooked and so are his refs.

Signed,

One Disgusted NBA Fan (for the time being)

You know what's better than listening to people complain about the obviously biased officiating? Listening to people suggest that the league is setting it up so a team that nobody wants to see advances. Seriously, nobody outside of Michigan wants to see Detroit play. People would rather watch Orlando.

I didn't see the TNT replay with the stopwatch but you say that 5.2 seconds had elapsed. There was 5.1 seconds on the clock. How is a difference of .1 seconds blatantly obvious?

Also, the refs went over to the table and tried to review the play. So, how can you honestly think that they put time on the clock so they could avoid replaying it. They tried. They couldn't.

"I didn't see the TNT replay with the stopwatch but you say that 5.2 seconds had elapsed. There was 5.1 seconds on the clock. How is a difference of .1 seconds blatantly obvious?"

Sorry if I was unclear. TNT's replay showed that 5.2 seconds had elapsed while the ball was still in Billups hand. The ball was then let go and still traveled to the rim (from a very deep 3). Had they continued the time it would have easily been at least 2 more seconds of time.

The refs also never went to the announcers table to review the play. They convened together to discuss the events and came up with the decision on their own. They were the ones that chose 0.5 seconds remaining so they could have also chosen 0.00 seconds remaining. Like I said above easily 7 or 8 seconds time passed from inbound to making the shot. There were 5.1 seconds on the clock before the inbound. Regardless whether or not the shot went in on time or not is irrelevant to the fact that the clock should have stood at 0.00 seconds, therefore allowing the play to be reviewed and allowing the refs to judge whether or not Chauncy made the shot in the alloted 5.1 seconds. They chose to put 0.5 seconds on the clock with no real reason that I could see, and they obviously knew the rule about reviewing a play only with 0.00 seconds left, so I have to wonder why.

I want to apologize for making it seem like I am trying to come up with some league wide conspiracy. I actually agree that it is not in the leagues best interest to have this boring Detroit team advance. However, David Stern does hire these refs and we've seen first hand that there has been corruption among an NBA ref. I don't think the ball stops rolling with Tim Donaghy. David Stern needs to clean up this mess and make sure that all future NBA refs are calling these games down the middle to ensure that the team that out-plays and out-coaches the other team wins. I'm tired of this "game decided by the refs" stuff. There shouldn't even be a question about the reffing.

didnt see the game.

Yeah, there were a few "questionable" calls in this game, but that's the beauty of home court advantage...

I'm sure the NBA doesn't have an agenda for the Pistons. Nobody likes that team, and I am not just saying that because they are a rival team. I am saying that because they are incredibly boring to watch.

Having said that, the Magic did get a raw deal last night. That 3 point shot should not have counted. There were 5.1 seconds left on the clock and TNT showed that it took 5.2 to get the shot off. That could have been 5.2 seconds, or it could have been 5.25 or even 5.29. The shot really should not have counted, but that's how it goes.

I also couldn't believe that they called that last Orlando possession a turnover. It should have been a foul, and at the very least called Orlando ball because it went of Ratliff.

The NBA officials have one obvious design flaw: They are people, and that means that there will be human error. If anything, they should have been allowed to check the replay since there was a clock malfunction, but the rules did not allow that. The NBA and David Stern should address that issue in the off-season, because it is not fair.

But for the time being, you have to go with the current rules.

Yes, the officials made the wrong call, but what do you want them to do in that situation? All of us at home had the luxury of seeing the TNT replay, they did not.

As for that "losing" the game for them - that's a long shot. Orlando had 12 minutes to make up the two point swing, and they faltered in the fourth quarter. If that shot happened with two minutes/one minute/30 seconds then sure, you'd have a serious gripe to moan about, but it didn't.

Tough loss for the Magic, but they're not playing well enough to win.

It really did screw the Magic. It possibly lost them the game unfairly.

However, you try being the ref who has to make that call... Estimate if exactly 5.1 seconds elapsed with no technological assistance in a building that if you rule against the shot will all but cause a riot.

Even Stan Van Gundy expressed in the press conference that Steve Javie was really frustrated that he couldn't review the play.

How can you accuse the refs of 'fixing' a play when no human can possibly estimate precisely between .1 and .2 seconds.

Give em a break dude.

Ok look. I'm not saying that refs should have decided on Chauncy's shot without review. I'm not stupid and I know that you would not be able to tell the difference between .1 or .2 seconds.

All of you seem to think everything they did made sense. Maybe one of you can explain to me then why they chose to 0.5 seconds remaining on the clock?

This is where my gripe is. Regardless of Chauncy getting the shot off in time or not, it was evident that everything from inbound to the ball going through the net took much more than 5.1 seconds. Just watching from home I immediately noticed that they were playing for much more than 5 seconds.

Knowing this, why didn't the refs put 0.00 seconds remaining on the clock (the seemingly logical choice), which would allow them to review the play. I don't think they were forced to put 0.5 seconds on the clock, it seemed like they pulled that number out of thin air (remember they couldn't review it through replay). Unless there is some NBA rule that states "during a clock malfunction the game clock needs to be set to 0.5 seconds remaining", or that "during a clock malfunction you cannot set the game clock to 0.00 seconds", or even "during a clock malfunction the play cannot under any circumstances be reviewed by replay", then I'm going to say the jury is still out on this one.

So either someone enlighten me with one of these rules I'm looking for that would explain to me why 0.5 seconds was chosen, or tell me how 0.5 seconds made sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave(Witness):
Ok look. I'm not saying that refs should have decided on Chauncy's shot without review. I'm not stupid and I know that you would not be able to tell the difference between .1 or .2 seconds.

All of you seem to think everything they did made sense. Maybe one of you can explain to me then why they chose to 0.5 seconds remaining on the clock?

This is where my gripe is. Regardless of Chauncy getting the shot off in time or not, it was evident that everything from inbound to the ball going through the net took much more than 5.1 seconds. Just watching from home I immediately noticed that they were playing for much more than 5 seconds.

How was it evident that it took "much more" than 5.1 seconds when the TNT superimposed clock showed that it took about 5.22 seconds? That's not "much more" than 5.1 seconds and it certainly isn't "evident." And, then you factor human error at the timekeeper perhaps being a split second late on starting the clock, and it's not evident at all. Not evident. Not obvious. Your immediate notice was inaccurate.

quote:

Knowing this, why didn't the refs put 0.00 seconds remaining on the clock (the seemingly logical choice), which would allow them to review the play. I don't think they were forced to put 0.5 seconds on the clock, it seemed like they pulled that number out of thin air (remember they couldn't review it through replay). Unless there is some NBA rule that states "during a clock malfunction the game clock needs to be set to 0.5 seconds remaining", or that "during a clock malfunction you cannot set the game clock to 0.00 seconds", or even "during a clock malfunction the play cannot under any circumstances be reviewed by replay", then I'm going to say the jury is still out on this one.

The whole point of reviewing the last play of quarters is to review to see whether the ball left the shooter's hands on time by looking at the clock and the red lights on the backboard glass. Since the clock never started and didn't end in 0.00 and the lights didn't go on, the officials can't use those things to review whether the shot was good or not. You don't just take a stop watch and just make the determination. That's just as arbitrary if not more so.

quote:

So either someone enlighten me with one of these rules I'm looking for that would explain to me why 0.5 seconds was chosen, or tell me how 0.5 seconds made sense.

When a play cannot be reviewed, which was the case in this situation, the officials make their best judgment on what the call is, including how much time is left. They do it all the time when the clock or the shot clock messes up in the middle of a quarter.

The problem here isn't how the officials handled the situation. The problem was that they didn't catch the clock malfunction until after the shot was taken. What should have happened was as soon as Billups got the ball and started dribbling and the clock didn't move, the officials should have stopped play. But, once the play happened, the shot was taken, the officials don't take the points off the board. That's consistent with what officials generally do during the game. They don't review because they couldn't review.

Charles and Kenny were right on the post game show.

The proper call should have been to restart the play. Not sure if that is allowed in the NBA, but if it is, that would be the fairest solution.

That said, I think the refs took an extremely high pressure situation and handled it the best they could.

I do think the Magic should appeal to the NBA. If the Heat can get a replay of the end of the 4th quarter against Atlanta because of scorer ineptitude, then maybe they'll just get themselves a replay of the 4th quarter.

I said when it happened that the play should be redone, just like Barkley said. When it comes down to the benefit of a doubt, they made a judgement call but were "kind" enough to place.5 seconds on the clock. Whats funny is they said they could not review the play because the clock did not show 0.0. Had the clock started, it would have shown 0.0, and they would have reviewed and said no basket. So basically, because of a dick rule in the NBA, when the clock most certainly malfunctioned, It could not be reviewed, because it did not show 0.0 seconds at the end. They really messed up this time, and the no call when Hedu was hacked, and the stupid rule about free throws and the ball even on incendental contact is bogus. **** go back to the early 90's when Reggie Miller raped the Knicks player to steal the inbounds pass...twice, today you touch someone they blow the whistle. my god what a joke.

They put .5 on the clock to avoid reviewing it because there was nothing to review. The clock never started and the red lights on the backboard didn't go off, so they couldn't review whether the shot was good or not. Taking a stop watch to the video replay is just as arbitrary. The play should have been re-done. But, the way they handled it wasn't incorrect based on NBA rules.

[QUOTE]Had the clock started, it would have shown 0.0, and they would have reviewed and said no basket.[QUOTE]

Actually, had the clock been right, the entire situation would have been different. Stuckey had a pretty wide open two, but he deferred to Billups, who is a better shooter, because he saw that the clock still read +4 seconds. If it had been right, Stuckey would have shot that. He might have made it, he might not. But Billups wouldn't have been the one to shoot had the clock worked properly.

Still, I can see Orlando's frustration, but I think too many people are stuck on that one call. I look at it as just another bad call that teams get from time to time. We had a lot of obvious stuff go against us in the game, but this clock deal was unique, so it sticks out.

At least the league admitted to it publicly. That rule is ******** and it looks like the league is going to look into this.

Link