Blazers ACTUALLY lost yesterday...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
DaRizzle

DaRizzle

BLAKER
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
9,631
Likes
104
Points
48
DPC is a douche for having this thread bookmarked
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dpc
I really thought it said 0.00 on the clock so I left. Still pissed about that one. time to break my TV
 
Yao was fouled, idiot. Clock stops when there's a foul, if anything, more time should be put BACK on the clock.
 
ummm do you know the rules of basketball? they blew the whistle when Roy hit him .... thus the clock stopped before it went it .... am I wrong here guys?

EDIT - nvm,...i see you corrected yourself...it happens to all of us sometimes ;)

appreciate you trying to find reasons why we should have lost though haha
 
Not only that, there was a time down the stretch (final minute) when the TNT announcers noted the clock wasn't moving whent he Blazers had the ball. And in another thread, someone has snapshot of Roy's shot showing that he caught the ball and turned and the clock still read .8

But it counts as a W . . . just win baby, win
 
Clock stops on the whistle. Whether it's a foul, a violation, whatever. Whenever the whistle blows, the time keeper stops the clock. It's not Rocket scince.

BNM
 
it's_GO_time said:
Not only that, there was a time down the stretch (final minute) when the TNT announcers noted the clock wasn't moving whent he Blazers had the ball. And in another thread, someone has snapshot of Roy's shot showing that he caught the ball and turned and the clock still read .8

But it counts as a W . . . just win baby, win
Click to expand...


Yeah I remember them mentioning that but I guess nothing was done about it
 
RAWRRRR

9be658152cc129e08e7106ccf331a342-getty-82993701jf009_houston_rocke.jpg


"wanna fight about it?"
 
DaRizzle said:
Its recorded as a W in the books and thats all that matters now but look...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Look at what the clock does when Yao shoots his shot with SUPPOSEDLY 0.8 seconds left.

THE CLOCK STOPS WHEN THE BALL IS HALFWAY TO THE RIM!!!

...its nice to have a hometown guy running the clock :devilwink:
Click to expand...


Preserved your post for future usage.
 
it's_GO_time said:
Not only that, there was a time down the stretch (final minute) when the TNT announcers noted the clock wasn't moving whent he Blazers had the ball. And in another thread, someone has snapshot of Roy's shot showing that he caught the ball and turned and the clock still read .8

But it counts as a W . . . just win baby, win
Click to expand...

Hollinger wrote this morning that he reviewed the shot and said it took 1.6 seconds, but later updated it. It now reads:

However, on Friday the league office -- with sophisticated tools at its disposal -- said its review concluded the shot took just under 0.8 seconds. To be exact, it took 23 frames, each of which takes a third of a second.
Click to expand...

And
DaRizzle said:
Yeah I remember them mentioning that but I guess nothing was done about it
Click to expand...

I'm sure this happens a bit every game. There's bound to be lag in the timing.
 
Also, what hasn't been pointed out is that DaRizzle is wrong...the clock stops when Yao was fouled.
 
B-Roy said:
Hollinger wrote this morning that he reviewed the shot and said it took 1.6 seconds, but later updated it. It now reads:



And


I'm sure this happens a bit every game. There's bound to be lag in the timing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info . . . good stuff. Hard to argue with a frame by frame break down by the league office. If tehy were wrong, the past has shown they would admit it.
 
Isn't the clock wired with the refs' whistle somehow?

So ya, it stopped when the ref called the foul...
 
Can everybody please leave this thread...this is a figment of your imagination
 
it's_GO_time said:
Thanks for the info . . . good stuff. Hard to argue with a frame by frame break down by the league office. If tehy were wrong, the past has shown they would admit it.
Click to expand...

Each frame is presumably a thirtieth of a second, rather than a third. Otherwise the clock was WAY off.

I'd expect 3 fps from CSNW but not TNT. ;)

Ed O.
 
Actually, the announers pointed out that the shot clock didn't start at one point late in the game, so in that sense the Blazers did get some extra help. Who cares though, we won.
 
Jurassic said:
Actually, the announers pointed out that the shot clock didn't start at one point late in the game, so in that sense the Blazers did get some extra help. Who cares though, we won.
Click to expand...

Depending on when that was, maybe Yao wouldn't have had as much time to shoot, etc., etc.

We won. Yay.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Each frame is presumably a thirtieth of a second, rather than a third. Otherwise the clock was WAY off.

I'd expect 3 fps from CSNW but not TNT. ;)

Ed O.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 1/3 part doesn't make sense. Otherwise, it took him 8 seconds to shoot that!
 
About the announcers mentioning that the clock did not start, it was a situation where the player inbounds the ball but the other player does not start dribbling. Brandon walked next to the ball almost up to half court and then started dribbling. The person in charge of the clock was correct in NOT starting it until B touched the rock. Reggie mentioned it to Marv. I was on the TNT crew last night in the truck and we showed Marv, Mike and Reggie during a commercial break what happened and they realized they were wrong. Just like we showed TMac's shot late in the 4th was a 2 and not a 3. If it means anything, I got a chance to see Brandon's shot from multiple angles and he clearly got it off.
 
Do you ever watch basketball??? Yao was fouled, the clock was stopped.


Laker fans these days...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top