Anyone Notice....

[rajonrondo9]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

[Edgar]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

lol yes
I think doc plans an incredible 5 seocnds play on KG with one left
lol
not Docs fault but every other Cs there (a couple of thousands) fault

[BudweiserCeltic]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

[crownsy]

KG and doc were more shocked that gibson's arm rake wasn't a foul I think, KG even turned to the ref on the TV telecast to ask if it was a foul and pointed to his arm.

Gibson was trying to strip him as he caught the ball, and generally be a pest since he knew it would be nigh imposable to get a shot off after having to catch an inbounds, but it looked like he got alot of arm, but i think the ref was hesitant to call a foul when chances are KG couldn't get the shot off anyway.

Doc then pulled the official aside and asked him about the reach in, and it looked like the official kind of blew him off.

im with the ref, not a foul i would call either, it would have givin up some pretty cheap FT's. As a celtics fan i would have liked it called, as a basketball fan i wouldn't have.

[Edgar]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

[BudweiserCeltic]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

Either case, as soon as Garnett caught the ball the buzzer went off... that's way too soon regardless of what Garnett was planning to do.  That's what Doc was arguing about.  The problem is that we see one second left on the shotclock, but we don't know how much of a fraction of a second there really is.  My guess is that there were a couple of tenths only, but the shotclock would still show 1 second.

[crownsy]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

it wasent the main play call,  they clearly checked off to pierce and allen first running out cuts to the wings. lets give Cleveland some credit, they ran the first 2 options off the stack play, and forced a more difficult inbounds, sometimes the opp. plays good defense too .

[Edgar]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

it wasent the main play call,  they clearly checked off to pierce and allen first running out cuts to the wings. lets give Cleveland some credit, they ran the first 2 options off the stack play, and forced a more difficult inbounds, sometimes the opp. plays good defense too .

I will give u this one
but
wasnt the second going too soon
a second last what a second last
unless its NBA and in 2008 u call the time with an air horn 

[heatnum119]

I think the thing is that a second on the shot clock isnt always a real second, and i think thats what the ref was taling to doc about. I remember back in the day before they had tenths of seconds for the quarters the play by play guys would say stuff like "long" and "short" seconds, so this may have been a case of a "short" second.

-heat

[KJ33]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

What play would you have called with 1 second? (which turned out to actually be less than 1 second, like the old days before they showed the tenths of seconds on the game clock, you never knew how much of that second was actually left).  Wallace and the rest of the Cavs were heavily playing for the lob at the rim, the choices were extremely limited with 1 second to go and the Cavs defended it well.

[Edgar]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Its almost imposible to make a turn around jumper with one second man
anyway not the play to call

What play would you have called with 1 second? (which turned out to actually be less than 1 second, like the old days before they showed the tenths of seconds on the game clock, you never knew how much of that second was actually left).  Wallace and the rest of the Cavs were heavily playing for the lob at the rim, the choices were extremely limited with 1 second to go and the Cavs defended it well.

mmm not a turn around
maybe some screen who knows...not me
but not a turn around

[davemonsterband]

It's not a full second guys, it's up to one full second, it could be .1 of a second, hence why I've been whining for years that it should be a 2 digit clock with tenths of a second in a 1/4 sized window next to the middle digit. Hockey changed a few years ago, so should they.

[Steve Weinman]

Just got back from the game.  Did anyone else notice that with 1 second left on the shot clock and the Celtics were inbounding, nobody had any idea that there was 1 second left on the shot clock.  KG looked shocked, as did Doc.  This seems to me something Doc should know and address.

That's not what happened.  What happened was that the 1 second went by too soon.  With one second you have enough time to catch the ball and shoot it. Garnett barely caught the ball and the shotclock went off. That was the argument.

Absolutely, Budweiser.  Well put.

And as heat clarifies, the explanation that I'd guess the refs were giving them was about the issue of fractional seconds not being displayed on the shot clock -- it might have read "one," but the true value was probably less than half a second, given that there wasn't time for KG to catch and shoot, which can be done with relative ease in a full second.

I'm not killing Doc or the players for this one.  Just a tough situation to be in.  It's the 23 seconds before that (when the first shot of the position didn't hit the rim) that were far more problematic.

-sw

[BJF860]

It's not a full second guys, it's up to one full second, it could be .1 of a second, hence why I've been whining for years that it should be a 2 digit clock with tenths of a second in a 1/4 sized window next to the middle digit. Hockey changed a few years ago, so should they.

I agree, they should get tenths of a second on there. It only makes sense.

But here is something I did not know, maybe you guys have, but apparently the shot clock starts at 24.9, well at least according to Mark Cuban's blog.

For the last two plus decades of watching basketball, I never knew this.

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/04/21/an-nba-fun-fact/

[Donoghus]

I heard some people calling up postgame on the radio last night complaining about this.  Several things happened.  The play to Garnett was NOT the primary play called. Everyone was coevered well by Cleveland Rondo didn't get the ball in until about 4 seconds into the inbound so he HAD to get it in or be called for a violation.  He threw it up to Garnett and he was turning away from the basket, unless he was looking at the basket and shooting while still in the air, there's no way that shot gets off.  There was clearly less than 1 second left on the shot clock but the shot clock only shows whole seconds.  It was an extremely tough situation and I don't think the criticism expressed at Doc is really justified here.  It was a bang bang play and Rondo had to get the inbounds pass in.  Compound that with less than a second and the likelihood of getting a successful play off diminishes sigificantly.