PDA

View Full Version : You be the Judge...did Brad Miller make that shot?



Pages : [1] 2

fairandbalanced
11-10-2009, 11:35 PM
That is the closest buzzer beater I ever seen, they had to judge by finger tips. I think the shot was good though...sorry Bulls fans.


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a7j7JEbupI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ODjkZvEy8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbY_6NX85g4

JNA17
11-10-2009, 11:36 PM
yes it counted, bulls got robbed big time

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:36 PM
he clearly still had the ball. no basket

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:37 PM
yes it counted, bulls got robbed big time

you can not be serious :facepalm:

ChiSox219
11-10-2009, 11:37 PM
You gotta go by the call on the floor.

The Bulls could've had .4 on the clock if the refs reviewed the Noah rebound close enough.

Rndy
11-10-2009, 11:39 PM
you can not be serious :facepalm:

Wtf are you talking about? I even recorded the game and looked at it over and over again. It was clearly out of his hand.

KH12
11-10-2009, 11:39 PM
They ruled it good before the review, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it. It should have been good, **** the nba and their dirty *** referees.

JNA17
11-10-2009, 11:40 PM
you can not be serious :facepalm:

wtf? are u blind? It was out of his hand. :facepalm:

Impulse
11-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Seemed the ball was barely on his fingertips when I paused the frame on my DVR. I'm surprised the officials overturned the call given that it was at Chicago, but I think they got it right.

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Wtf are you talking about? I even recorded the game and looked at it over and over again. It was clearly out of his hand.

i guess your a chicago fan. i dont have a rooting interest he still had his fingertips on the ball.

TheFuture6
11-10-2009, 11:41 PM
On his fingertips.

B.JenningsMVP
11-10-2009, 11:42 PM
No good. SOOO close to counting though.

gqmo16
11-10-2009, 11:43 PM
if u look at the different angles, u can tell it was out of his hand...certain angles just give a false impression and make it seem like it was on his fingertips

Catfish1314
11-10-2009, 11:43 PM
When it's that close, give it to the home team. Refs ****ed that one up. I thought he just barely had it gone but it was too close to call.

Rndy
11-10-2009, 11:43 PM
i guess your a chicago fan. i dont have a rooting interest he still had his fingertips on the ball.


There was not enough evidence to overturn it. Being the home team and getting not getting that is bs. Bulls fan or not. You are wrong and if the other 8,000 posts in less then a year are like this I feel sorry for your teams forums.

tp13baby
11-10-2009, 11:44 PM
it was in his hand from the altitude view.
still on his fingers.
no bucket.

the bulls got the timeout without full possesion of the ball.
how can a ball and rebound take less than .3 seconds?
it starts when it hits the iron.

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:45 PM
There was not enough evidence to overturn it. Being the home team and getting not getting that is bs. Bulls fan or not. You are wrong and if the other 8,000 posts in less then a year are like this I feel sorry for your teams forums.

yes there was evidence. the overhead shot was clear.

hawkeyefootball
11-10-2009, 11:45 PM
it was in his hand from the altitude view.
still on his fingers.
no bucket.

the bulls got the timeout without full possesion of the ball.
how can a ball and rebound take less than .3 seconds?
it starts when it hits the iron.

That's the view that gave the worst angle by far.

CB4AB7VC15
11-10-2009, 11:46 PM
No cuz I got the nuggets at 1.7 and won........

CB4AB7VC15
11-10-2009, 11:46 PM
Lol

Second City
11-10-2009, 11:46 PM
The shot was too close to call, so they should not have overturned it. Basically we got screwed. I am so ****ing angry right now!

cubsfan2206
11-10-2009, 11:48 PM
every angle they showed you cant be 100 percent accurate to say it was still in his hands, therefore you cannot overturn that and the basket should have counted. Bulls got ****ed, period!

Go_NUGGETS
11-10-2009, 11:49 PM
No...The refs knew they ****ed up a bunch of calls at the end for the nuggets...We deserved that call after all the ******** calls in that game against the Nuggets.

USMCLaker
11-10-2009, 11:50 PM
To close to call, I would have given it to the Bulls but hell that's because we're in the west, the last foul that sent Chancey to the line was just pure stupidity.

Draco
11-10-2009, 11:51 PM
No...The refs knew they ****ed up a bunch of calls at the end for the nuggets...We deserved that call after all the ******** calls in that game against the Nuggets.

Like the no-call on Melo who tripped Deng?

hawkeyefootball
11-10-2009, 11:51 PM
No...The refs knew they ****ed up a bunch of calls at the end for the nuggets...We deserved that call after all the ******** calls in that game against the Nuggets.

:laugh:

northsider
11-10-2009, 11:52 PM
******** call I am in disbelief that basket didn't count bulls got robbed.

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:52 PM
you cant get a shot off in .3, its almost impossible

tp13baby
11-10-2009, 11:52 PM
maybe chicago got screwed
but how a rebound off a miss free throw take only .3 seconds.
refs were bad.

RocketsRule
11-10-2009, 11:52 PM
Judging from the replay it was on the tips of his fingers. I must say I was surprised they didn't give it to the Bulls though.

theuuord
11-10-2009, 11:53 PM
someone show a video. it was blacked out on league pass.

tadmanny
11-10-2009, 11:53 PM
I think the shot was good, but it's too hard to see. If there was a 3D camera that could rotate from that front angle, it would be clearly visible, but until that day, it's a coinflip.

theuuord
11-10-2009, 11:54 PM
just found a crappy one, if someone finds a clear one let me know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ODjkZvEy8

tp13baby
11-10-2009, 11:54 PM
No...The refs knew they ****ed up a bunch of calls at the end for the nuggets...We deserved that call after all the ******** calls in that game against the Nuggets.

and they didn't call the fall on chauncey with 4 seconds.
the refs didn't play sides.
they just suck and should skip a game or two.

northsider
11-10-2009, 11:54 PM
A majority of the views gave a false impression his finger tips were the last thing to touch the ball. If you actually look he more so pushed the ball out of his hands then letting it roll of his finger tips. ******** call ohh well nothing you can do now.

Draco
11-10-2009, 11:54 PM
Horrible use of video replay.. changing calls based on replay should be done if the ref's actually missed something in the play, not when the play is too close to call by nearly everyone's account.

bahama0811
11-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Ball was still on his fingertips, pretty much every angle they showed had it that way. Sorry you lost Bulls fans. I hate to see a game end that way but the ball was still on his fingertips.

ChiSox219
11-10-2009, 11:55 PM
There was not conclusive evidence.

theuuord
11-10-2009, 11:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ODjkZvEy8

Not the best, but the first

sloppy seconds, lol.

USMCLaker
11-10-2009, 11:56 PM
A hard one to swallow I'd probably be pissed to if I was a bulls fan, it looked like the fans were about to riot.

Young and Stupid
11-10-2009, 11:56 PM
Not even close (IMO), the refs got it right.

tp13baby
11-10-2009, 11:57 PM
well the nuggets played bad tonight.

northsider
11-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Ball was still on his fingertips, pretty much every angle they showed had it that way. Sorry you lost Bulls fans. I hate to see a game end that way but the ball was still on his fingertips.

Says the Nuggets fan.

ChiSox219
11-10-2009, 11:57 PM
sloppy seconds, lol.

Hey, I take what I can get

Jonathan2323
11-10-2009, 11:57 PM
it would have been good with .6 left

Draco
11-10-2009, 11:58 PM
A hard one to swallow I'd probably be pissed to if I was a bulls fan, it looked like the fans were about to riot.

They should have.. the ref's took a giant dump on every ticket paying Bulls fan.

tp13baby
11-10-2009, 11:58 PM
Says the Nuggets fan.

says the bulls fan

bahama0811
11-10-2009, 11:58 PM
Horrible use of video replay.. changing calls based on replay should be done if the ref's actually missed something in the play, not when the play is too close to call by nearly everyone's account.

Umm, that's exactly what video replay was made for. They got the call right and the right team won. The ball was still on his fingertips and that's how they called.

thapharcyd
11-10-2009, 11:59 PM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

Draco
11-10-2009, 11:59 PM
Umm, that's exactly what video replay was made for. They got the call right and the right team won. The ball was still on his fingertips and that's how they called.

You're in the minority with that opinion.

bahama0811
11-11-2009, 12:00 AM
Says the Nuggets fan.

What, you want me to lie and say the basket was good. Be pissed all you want but the call was right.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
Hey, I take what I can get

hahaha.

that being said, ugh. it's impossible to tell with that fan vid. even if it doesn't count, still an amazing shot.

TheFuture6
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

This.

tp13baby
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
bulls fans they should be happy they had the chance for a shot.

the game should have been over after the missed free throw.

Go_NUGGETS
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

EXACTLY......

The refs messed that up, and the Billups got fouled with 4.0 to go, and Melo didn't get no calls in the 4th while he was getting slapped and elbowed.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
Umm, that's exactly what video replay was made for. They got the call right and the right team won. The ball was still on his fingertips and that's how they called.

There is just no way you could tell. I think the reason the refs made the call is the way Miller took the shot, it just wasn't a tip.

If you say you could tell, you are lying. The refs took a dozen looks at it in high def and still couldnt decide.

ESPN has those really fancy cameras with high frame rates, that may have helped in this case.

tp13baby
11-11-2009, 12:01 AM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

amen!

bahama0811
11-11-2009, 12:03 AM
There is just no way you could tell. I think the reason the refs made the call is the way Miller took the shot, it just wasn't a tip.

If you say you could tell, you are lying. The refs took a dozen looks at it in high def and still couldnt decide.

ESPN has those really fancy cameras with high frame rates, that may have helped in this case.

Well, if you look at the Altitude replay it showed that the ball was still on his fingers. That's what I saw and it was pretty clear that it was still there.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:03 AM
If you say you could tell, you are lying. The refs took a dozen looks at it in high def and still couldnt decide.

ESPN has those really fancy cameras with high frame rates, that may have helped in this case.

i mean, it seems like they did decide. there has to be conclusive evidence seen by a ref to overturn a floor call, so the refs took a dozen looks in high def and did make a decision.

either way i want to look at it myself (with a real vid) before i pass judgment.

Jonathan2323
11-11-2009, 12:03 AM
No way he gets the shot off with .3 left. I can't believe this is even being debated. It was still on his fingertips.

RocketsRule
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
it would have been good with .6 left

.6 seconds? It would have been good with .4 seconds.

fairandbalanced
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ODjkZvEy8


only video so far

Go_NUGGETS
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
You got to look at it from the roof/top view...The ball is not off his hands.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
Well, if you look at the Altitude replay it showed that the ball was still on his fingers. That's what I saw and it was pretty clear that it was still there.

I could see your point if Millers attempt was a traditional shot with the ball rolling of the tips of your finger. It looked like more like a shot put coming out of his palm, so even if the altitude shot shows the fingers over the ball, you can't tell by that angle when the ball discontinues contact with Miller's hand

Mell413
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
I don't think you can catch and shoot with that little time left if I'm not mistaken. I think the only way you can score with that much time is by a tip.

pacofunk64
11-11-2009, 12:05 AM
Ya it was very close but I just don't know if there was enough evidence to over turn the call on the court. Either way, its not a make or break for either team.

CQSox305
11-11-2009, 12:06 AM
I hate when refs decide games!

blackjack_119
11-11-2009, 12:06 AM
There was not enough evidence to overturn it. Being the home team and getting not getting that is bs. Bulls fan or not. You are wrong and if the other 8,000 posts in less then a year are like this I feel sorry for your teams forums.

Isn't that what every Cavs fan said when they lost at home against Chicago? The refs got the call right in both games... but the fans of other team have a right to be upset because it is such a close call.

Ethix11
11-11-2009, 12:07 AM
you cant get a shot off in .3, its almost impossible

didnt Derek Fisher once get a shot off in .3 seconds? im pretty sure its possible

hawkeyefootball
11-11-2009, 12:07 AM
You got to look at it from the roof/top view...The ball is not off his hands.

That's the worst view. You see the back of his hands in that view, no way of telling.

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 12:07 AM
I'm a Bulls fan, but it looked good to me no-bias. Cause my decision doesn't matter so if I say it was no good it's not like the refs change the call and its my fault the Bulls lost. To me it looked just out of his fingertips based on when it woulda went off.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:07 AM
i mean, it seems like they did decide. there has to be conclusive evidence seen by a ref to overturn a floor call, so the refs took a dozen looks in high def and did make a decision.

either way i want to look at it myself (with a real vid) before i pass judgment.

True they came to a decision but only because they had to. Like I said, the way Miller shot the ball, it's hard to say he only took .3 seconds and I believe that's the reason the Nuggets got the call.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:08 AM
didnt Derek Fisher once get a shot off in .3 seconds? im pretty sure its possible

.4. and it is possible (not probable, just possible), but lord knows if he actually did it.

i want a real video, lol.

bahama0811
11-11-2009, 12:08 AM
I could see your point if Millers attempt was a traditional shot with the ball rolling of the tips of your finger. It looked like more like a shot put coming out of his palm, so even if the altitude shot shows the fingers over the ball, you can't tell by that angle when the ball discontinues contact with Miller's hand

They had a view from the side and from above and both angles showed that his fingers were still on the ball.

Draco
11-11-2009, 12:10 AM
True they came to a decision but only because they had to. Like I said, the way Miller shot the ball, it's hard to say he only took .3 seconds and I believe that's the reason the Nuggets got the call.

It's impossible to know.. the ref's were looking at the same video that we were shown.

bahama0811
11-11-2009, 12:10 AM
If I was a Bulls fan I'd be pissed. I completely understand and it does suck. So I'll just sorry about it and be done with it.

northsider
11-11-2009, 12:10 AM
They had a view from the side and from above and both angles showed that his fingers were still on the ball.

I am done arguing this but, I have yet to see as definite evidence as you seem to have seen. There's no way you can actually say 100% that ball was on his finger tips if you do your lying. Either way good game **** happens it just sucks it happened to my team.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:11 AM
True they came to a decision but only because they had to. Like I said, the way Miller shot the ball, it's hard to say he only took .3 seconds and I believe that's the reason the Nuggets got the call.

i'm confused by this. why did they have to? i mean, you have to figure that the refs had to see something worth changing it for, since they ruled in favor of the away team. they knew they were going to anger the home crowd, and you have to think that there was something conclusive that made them do it.

again, i still haven't seen a clear video, so i could be way off base with this. just what i'm assuming by what i've heard.

bahama0811
11-11-2009, 12:12 AM
I am done arguing this but, I have yet to see as definite evidence as you seem to have seen. There's no way you can actually say 100% that ball was on his finger tips if you do your lying. Either way good game **** happens it just sucks it happened to my team.

No worries man, I'm done with it too. Good luck for you guys and see ya down the road!

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 12:13 AM
.6 seconds? It would have been good with .4 seconds.

Hell, they woulda had to call it good if there was .31 seconds.

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-11-2009, 12:14 AM
I cant tell, but how did only 3 tenths of a second come off, after a missed free throw. Some shady clock management was going on there.

Also, isn't there a rule that says you can only make a jump shot with .4 seconds left. Anything less than that, it has to be a tap in at the rim.

69centers
11-11-2009, 12:16 AM
They called it good and I don't see any conclusive evidence that it wasn't, so it should never have been overturned. Nuggets got extremely lucky there.

Draco
11-11-2009, 12:17 AM
I cant tell, but how did only 3 tenths of a second come off, after a missed free throw. Some shady clock management was going on there.

Also, isn't there a rule that says you can only make a jump shot with .4 seconds left. Anything less than that, it has to be a tap in at the rim.

Time obviously expired and the ref's put .3 back on the clock...

DODGERS&LAKERS
11-11-2009, 12:19 AM
Time obviously expired and the ref's put .3 back on the clock...

Oh, but about the replay. I cant tell. I dont know if the NBA is like the NFL in that it needs to be conclusive on the replay, in order to over turn a call. If it is, than that should not have been over turned if they called it good in the first place. Too close to call

Rocktober2009
11-11-2009, 12:19 AM
No he didnt, but it was close and could of gone either way. The replays I saw had his fingers on the ball still..

The refs effed up so many times in this game, but I think they got that last one right

Chicagofaithful
11-11-2009, 12:23 AM
wow that blows... nba refs affecting yet another game.... shocking

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:24 AM
i'm confused by this. why did they have to? i mean, you have to figure that the refs had to see something worth changing it for, since they ruled in favor of the away team. they knew they were going to anger the home crowd, and you have to think that there was something conclusive that made them do it.

again, i still haven't seen a clear video, so i could be way off base with this. just what i'm assuming by what i've heard.

I'm probably just being biased, I just think there wasn't enough in the replay to overturn it.

Here are the official rules:

Billups attempts second FT with .6 on the clock


NO LESS than :00.3 must expire on the game clock when a player secures possession of
an unsuccessful free throw attempt and immediately requests a timeout.

Noah secures rebound and a timeout is granted (VDN requested a timeout if the FT was missed, which Billups missed intentionally)



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. Instant replay shall be utilized if the
basket is successful on this type of play and the clock runs to 0:00.

Miller catches and shoots with .3 on the clock

Rome
11-11-2009, 12:28 AM
i still haven't seen a clear video, so i could be way off base with this. just what i'm assuming by what i've heard.

In that video it looks no good.

carter15
11-11-2009, 12:30 AM
I thought it was still in his hands..

Gators123
11-11-2009, 12:30 AM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

I agree

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:31 AM
In that video it looks no good.

yeah but that video is like the least conclusive thing ever.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:32 AM
I agree

The NBA rulebook disagrees.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:32 AM
I'm probably just being biased, I just think there wasn't enough in the replay to overturn it.

fair enough. for what it's worth, i'll echo chronz's sentiments in his thread about you.

_KB24_
11-11-2009, 12:33 AM
I'm not sure of how close it was, I'll wait for a better quality clip. But if it was as close as people are saying, and the refs called it good on the court, I think the call should stand.

PS.... Imagine guys, if this were to happen during the Finals, Game 7 with the same outcome.........Imagine the controversy.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 12:34 AM
I'm not sure of how close it was, I'll wait for a better quality clip. But if it was as close as people are saying, and the refs called it good on the court, I think the call should stand.

PS.... Imagine guys, if this were to happen during the Finals, Game 7 with the same outcome.........Imagine the controversy.

if that had happened, they'd probably still be reviewing it. (and there'd also be like 15 times the camera coverage).

J4KOP99
11-11-2009, 12:42 AM
I was watching the game and since they called it good the first time, I don't think there was enough proof to overturn it.

I have no idea if the NBA uses the same "conclusive" rule as the NFL does but either way...a shot like that, just give it to him.

My Lakers bias does make me want to see the Nuggets lose though, so take that into consideration when you read my post.

JJ_JKidd
11-11-2009, 12:42 AM
If Brad's fingers were shorter it would have counted. In short, no basket!

Gators123
11-11-2009, 12:43 AM
The NBA rulebook disagrees.

hmm, I'm not sure then. If I am a bulls fan i'm pissed they didn't call it. But If I was a Denver fan and they counted it I would be pissed

JJ_JKidd
11-11-2009, 12:43 AM
I'm not sure of how close it was, I'll wait for a better quality clip. But if it was as close as people are saying, and the refs called it good on the court, I think the call should stand.

PS.... Imagine guys, if this were to happen during the Finals, Game 7 with the same outcome.........Imagine the controversy.

And the outrage that comes with it :mad:

asandhu23
11-11-2009, 12:45 AM
i have to say Brad Miller got it off. I really think this one is going straight to the commissioner and every official will be reviewing this. good job, brad.

ecorrea
11-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Here are the official rules:

Billups attempts second FT with .6 on the clock


Noah secures rebound and a timeout is granted (VDN requested a timeout if the FT was missed, which Billups missed intentionally)


Miller catches and shoots with .3 on the clock


Exactly, and then Bulls shoulda won as with replay it was imposible to tell.

:up:

Kyben36
11-11-2009, 12:48 AM
Could have been in his hand, could have been his folowthrough, You just cant tell, but they called it good on the court, and as I see it, no evidence to turn it over,

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:49 AM
My question is, can this go to the league offices, and say when I wake up tomorrow they either overturn or uphold the ruling?

DodgerBulls
11-11-2009, 12:49 AM
this is why i hate technology interferance in sports.
what ever happened to the old good/bad judgement from the refs.

ohh specially in baseball, replay crap that was implemented was just pure bulls*it.

I personally think that the Miller shot was in.
I just can't believe that if they will use the technology to review this such scenarios, then they should use the most advance technology.
Not looking at that 27" monitor the refs look at.

But then again, different angles call for different calls.

So lets just say this,

Shot was in because it the refs called it first.
In football lingo, the play is not reviewable.

Toxeryll
11-11-2009, 12:50 AM
i dont know about u guys, but i think the refs made the ryt call.

fairandbalanced
11-11-2009, 12:50 AM
My question is, can this go to the league offices, and say when I wake up tomorrow they either overturn or uphold the ruling?

no....it's final.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:50 AM
no....it's final.

Good to know

effen5
11-11-2009, 12:51 AM
I honestly have no ****in clue if it was good or not....IT WAS THAT CLOSE....theres a reason why the refs were looking over and over for five minutes...they have no idea either....

But they should have given it to the Bulls just for making that crazy shot and it being THAT close.

Either way, to the Bulls haters, we're playing well against great teams and that was a fun game to watch against the Nuggets.

Good game Denver.

king4day
11-11-2009, 12:51 AM
Looked clear enough to me that it was still on his fingers.

Toxeryll
11-11-2009, 12:52 AM
I honestly have no ****in clue if it was good or not....IT WAS THAT CLOSE....theres a reason why the refs were looking over and over for five minutes...they have no idea either....

But they should have given it to the Bulls just for making that crazy shot and it being THAT close.

Either way, to the Bulls haters, we're playing well against great teams and that was a fun game to watch against the Nuggets.

Good game Denver.

theres also reason why the refs overturned the initial call.

king4day
11-11-2009, 12:54 AM
I thought you could only tip the ball in with under .4 left. How is it possible he even had enough time to catch and shoot like that?

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 12:56 AM
"We all know Brad Miller is too slow to do anything in .3 seconds, let's just give it to the Nuggets and go home"

That's what I would be saying if I was Wunderlich

Raph12
11-11-2009, 12:57 AM
Looked too close to call, but an exciting game none-the-less.

st3voness
11-11-2009, 12:58 AM
NBA rules state you have to have .4 seconds to be able to get a shot off - anything under that allotted time has to be some sort of alley-oop tip in.

Correct call.

gocubs2118
11-11-2009, 12:59 AM
NBA rules state you have to have .4 seconds to be able to get a shot off - anything under that allotted time has to be some sort of alley-oop tip in.

Correct call.

Its .3 seconds but nice try though.

Stunner
11-11-2009, 01:00 AM
My question is, can this go to the league offices, and say when I wake up tomorrow they either overturn or uphold the ruling?

Yeah jus like the Heat and Hawks game a few years ago.

Rome
11-11-2009, 01:00 AM
yeah but that video is like the least conclusive thing ever.

I'll have to see it on SC or something.

Jonathan2323
11-11-2009, 01:03 AM
you can't catch and shoot with .3 sec left, thats what E Snow said it could only be a tip in.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 01:06 AM
you can't catch and shoot with .3 sec left, thats what E Snow said it could only be a tip in.

Wrong.

The NBA then established a rule stating that "0.3 needs to be on the clock in order for a player to get a shot off whether they make it or not." A shot that is tipped in with less than 0.3 seconds remaining may still count.

http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Trent_Tucker

king4day
11-11-2009, 01:06 AM
http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/79/l_c60fa83d2af34f4abbd583cd7a626330.jpg

I have a bigger clearer image on my pc but this is as large as I can get the pic to be.

Slimsim
11-11-2009, 01:06 AM
Look who shot the game winner it was brad miller hes a no name. If it was DR then they probably would have given it to the bulls. Even though the only people who think the shot was good are bulls fan.

gocubs2118
11-11-2009, 01:06 AM
you can't catch and shoot with .3 sec left, thats what E Snow said it could only be a tip in.

Well he is wrong. You can catch and shoot with .3 seconds left.

Jonathan2323
11-11-2009, 01:08 AM
http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/79/l_c60fa83d2af34f4abbd583cd7a626330.jpg

I have a bigger clearer image on my pc but this is as large as I can get the pic to be.

its on his hand.

what am i going to hear next its not clear?

king4day
11-11-2009, 01:08 AM
sorry if I was. Didn't mean to come out as one. Hard to via writing (or typing).

It's cool.
I didn't know he got it off as quick as he did with the first video. ESPN highlights it was easier to see.

Toxeryll
11-11-2009, 01:09 AM
Look who shot the game winner it was brad miller hes a no name. If it was DR then they probably would have given it to the bulls. Even though the only people who think the shot was good are bulls fan.

right:up:

aZekuiS
11-11-2009, 01:11 AM
ball was clearly touching his fingers. good call.

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:11 AM
Everyone in this thread needs to cool the hell off.

If people keep insulting each other and fighting, I'm going to start banning people. This is getting ridiculous. Please go read the zero tolerance thread posted at the top of the NBA forum.

And learn it. And love it. And live it.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 01:12 AM
Look who shot the game winner it was brad miller hes a no name. If it was DR then they probably would have given it to the bulls. Even though the only people who think the shot was good are bulls fan.

well he was an allstar... Would have changed the call for Rose as well. It would have to be Lebron, Wade or Kobe.

Kyben36
11-11-2009, 01:13 AM
WTF, why isnt there a poll, would make this thread alot better., can a mod add a poll of yes or No or maybe even too close to tell.

abe_froman
11-11-2009, 01:15 AM
you can't catch and shoot with .3 sec left, thats what E Snow said it could only be a tip in.

yes it is .3 is the min. amount of time it takes to do it

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 01:17 AM
whatever, no use arguing about this...
It was a good game, one full of terrible calls though.
The day the nba starts using androids for refs, will be the happiest day of my life.
I'll probably be dead by then though :sigh:

Game_Over
11-11-2009, 01:19 AM
The game should have been over after Billups missed that FT, there was .6 and only .3 came off the clock? Get outta here... game over

That was my point!! Good Call:clap:

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:20 AM
When it's that close, give it to the home team.

I still haven't seen it, so I still don't know for myself.

But I don't follow your reasoning. Why should the location of the game tip the scales either way? Isn't objectivity without any favoritism the ultimate goal in officiating?

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 01:21 AM
I still haven't seen it, so I still don't know for myself.

But I don't follow your reasoning. Why should the location of the game tip the scales either way? Isn't objectivity without any favoritism the ultimate goal in officiating?

Not in the NBA.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 01:21 AM
That was my point!! Good Call:clap:

Says who?
They reviewed that call and came with the decision fairly quick. That call is easily proven.

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:23 AM
Not in the NBA.

I'm not saying it's the reality. I'm saying it's the goal.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 01:24 AM
I'm not saying it's the reality. I'm saying it's the goal.

I know, and I'm saying it's not the goal.

Rocktober2009
11-11-2009, 01:26 AM
They're gonna make some rule changes after this game, but the outcome will not change no matter whos wrong or right, if they did protest the result or whatever they would have to look at the replay and find conclusive evidence that he got it off and we all know conclusive evidence doesnt exist either way here

Game_Over
11-11-2009, 01:27 AM
I want to watch the replay of the Billups miss again, I thought more than .03 should have gone off the clock for that..

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 01:29 AM
I want to watch the replay of the Billups miss again, I thought more than .03 should have gone off the clock for that..

It's in the NBA rule book, .3 seconds for a rebounded FT and immediate timeout.

xSolidx
11-11-2009, 01:30 AM
I was looking at it live on NBATV, I thought it didnt count, especially when they showed the overhead camera

The Bulls announcers were complete homers though. Its fine to be a little homerish but to me they didnt want to admit that the ball was still on Millers fingertips. They would either say it was good or it was too close not to overturn, it was clear he still had the ball in his hands.

I understand the Bulls fans frustrations, but it just didnt count and it was the correct call

pf289
11-11-2009, 01:31 AM
no

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:32 AM
I know, and I'm saying it's not the goal.

So, you think the refs should call games with a favorable bias to the home court team? Because that's what the original post I was responding to was saying.

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:34 AM
It's in the NBA rule book, .3 seconds for a rebounded FT and immediate timeout.

If I'm not mistaken, that's the minimum amount of time the refs are allowed to say transpired. But that doesn't automatically mean that teams will get the ball and call timeout that quickly every time.

oshea225
11-11-2009, 01:35 AM
espn just had a great shot of it. it was the overhead camera and they paused it as soon as the light went on on the hoop. the ball was clearly, but barely, still on his fingertips. no good

SA5195
11-11-2009, 01:35 AM
LOL at the reaction of the guy that recorded that.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 01:38 AM
So, you think the refs should call games with a favorable bias to the home court team? Because that's what the original post I was responding to was saying.

I don't think so, but I don't think the NBA's main goal is objectivity in officiating.

Kyben36
11-11-2009, 01:47 AM
espn just had a great shot of it. it was the overhead camera and they paused it as soon as the light went on on the hoop. the ball was clearly, but barely, still on his fingertips. no good

And, the controversy begins again. it cant be clear if its barely, hard to explain, but you get my point, realy depends on the refs, personaly, I think they made the right call, but god, damn, I screamed my lungs off on that shot, for nothing, thats the only thing that upsets me.

Also, to be corect, that fingertip, could just be the folowtrhough, but like I siad, I think they made the right call.

Gambeezy
11-11-2009, 01:51 AM
They ruled it good before the review, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it. It should have been good, **** the nba and their dirty *** referees.

Great point. The evidence wasn't irrefutable. The shot should have actually counted if they couldn't tell without a shadow of a doubt. Ruling on the court should have stood even if they later determine that it, in fact, was still on his finger. I actually feel bad for Bulls fans on this one. That's a tough loss fellas. Good game against a good team.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 01:55 AM
Great point. The evidence wasn't irrefutable. The shot should have actually counted if they couldn't tell without a shadow of a doubt. Ruling on the court should have stood even if they later determine that it, in fact, was still on his finger. I actually feel bad for Bulls fans on this one. That's a tough loss fellas. Good game against a good team.

It's hard to be even excited about the fact that Rose, noah and Deng all had great games and we stayed with a contending team :sigh:

Gambeezy
11-11-2009, 02:03 AM
It's hard to be even excited about the fact that Rose, noah and Deng all had great games and we stayed with a contending team :sigh:

Well, if it's any consolation, your sig youtube link from Onion made me die laughing. hilarious

Joshtd1
11-11-2009, 02:05 AM
I think they made the correct call, it looked like it was still there.

Besides..its funny. Techincally the only thing a player can do with the ball when the clock is at .3 or less is just tip it in. There should be no way a player can catch the ball and shoot the ball with that much time.

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 02:05 AM
IMO, the shot shoulda counted. But does it matter? No. Bulls lost so there's nothing any of us can do about it. But IMO the Bulls should be 5-2.

Gators123
11-11-2009, 02:06 AM
Well, if it's any consolation, your sig youtube link from Onion made me die laughing. hilarious

Detroit lions :facepalm: lol I feel bad for Calvin Johnson

Confusion
11-11-2009, 02:06 AM
You gotta go by the call on the floor.

The Bulls could've had .4 on the clock if the refs reviewed the Noah rebound close enough.Yeah but as far as the question goes he didn't get it off in time.

VIP1349
11-11-2009, 02:10 AM
We'll never know for sure however the ref's saw what they saw. And when they looked at it, his fingertips were on the ball. I don't see how it's humanly possible for a human being to shoot in .3 seconds but that's beside the fact. They had plenty of angles, plenty of ways to see it and they made the call. There's no way they started the clock in time, should we say it doesn't count cause there is no real evidence of that. I think it's best to review make sure the call is right and they did. It's up to the ref's not us, they made the call that they saw.

However I am sure having the entire Bulls coaching staff and team yelling at them the entire time didn't make them happy either. Lack of class by them is what I think. But regardless what happened, happened. Shame it came to that but in this world there's no way to say they started the clock at the right time, can never be exact enough. However it was the right thing to review and make the call they thought was right, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a human being could watch the shot, the clock, his fingertips and make the call on the court it's ludacris to say they shouldn't use replay's or not make the best call they see when looking at that. If they called the shot no good originally but said "Na not enough evidence to overturn" how would the Bulls fans have felt then? They'd have been the ones pleading the opposite case.

Kings Faithful
11-11-2009, 02:13 AM
I just watched it frame by frame. Refs got it right. Either way, the Bulls got what they deserved for giving it to Brad Miller... the worst clutch player in the history of the NBA... even when he makes it... he misses.

proCHIsox
11-11-2009, 02:14 AM
Whats the point of instant replay if it isnt used correctly? The call on the floor was the shot was good, and there was no indisputable evidence to change that call. I am disgusted with the officiating.

WadeCounty
11-11-2009, 02:15 AM
i think the bulls got robbed although I will admit i'm kind of actually happy for it seeing as it goes to a team in the west

G-Menfan4lyfe
11-11-2009, 02:16 AM
I think they made the correct call, it looked like it was still there.

Besides..its funny. Techincally the only thing a player can do with the ball when the clock is at .3 or less is just tip it in. There should be no way a player can catch the ball and shoot the ball with that much time.

totally agree with this statement man. The bulls got the home team advantage of the clock starting late on the inbounds pass. A catch and shoot with .3 second left on the clock? Really? And Brad Miller didnt take the quickest shot in the world. They got the call right IMO and Im a heat fan for what its worth.

G-Menfan4lyfe
11-11-2009, 02:18 AM
regardless bulls fans will cry foul by the refs..... its over and nothing can be done now.

KG2TB
11-11-2009, 02:28 AM
Should have counted IMO due to no indisputable evidence to overturn it, oh well.

The officiating was pretty poor all around this game but regardless, the Bulls still had chances to win. Kirk's foul on Billups to give Denver the lead was inexcusable. You just can't reach in, in that situation. It's good to see Deng still playing well, his D on Melo was EXCELLENT. Melo's one of the tougher guards in the NBA. Noah continues to be a beast. You can tell Rose isn't healthy yet. He's very timid out there and doesn't attack the basket like he's capable. I think he's just getting his feet wet now and will be back to his old self in a week or two. Salmons is still up and down. We're gonna need him to be a consistent 16-18 PPG scorer for us to win consistently. All in all, pleased with the defense, not too please with the call at the end of the game but the Bulls are only gonna get better as the season goes on. Obviously in dire need of a PF and hopefully that will come.

PS.

The shot should have counted :)

akesh99
11-11-2009, 02:34 AM
no basket. the ball was still on his fingertips on the release

Gambeezy
11-11-2009, 02:36 AM
totally agree with this statement man. The bulls got the home team advantage of the clock starting late on the inbounds pass. A catch and shoot with .3 second left on the clock? Really? And Brad Miller didnt take the quickest shot in the world. They got the call right IMO and Im a heat fan for what its worth.

What the hell dude? Get your butt in the Heat forum. We could use more posters. I don't think I've ever seen you in there.

KG2TB
11-11-2009, 02:39 AM
no basket. the ball was still on his fingertips on the release

No way you can say that conclusively, 100% accurate...one angle it looked like the Ball just got off, another angle looked like it MAY have been on his fingertips...no way any of those replays was conclusive. That's probably the closest call I've ever seen, including football.

FML
11-11-2009, 02:41 AM
I think it wasn't indisputable by any means. Dumb call. We'll get our chance for revenge.

ChiSox219
11-11-2009, 02:48 AM
ESPN is only showing one angle and IMO it was not the best angle we saw.

proCHIsox
11-11-2009, 02:53 AM
I think it wasn't indisputable by any means. Dumb call. We'll get our chance for revenge.

Who are we supposed to get revenge on? The officiating screwed us. If there was a way to get revenge on them, lets do it.

GoatMilk
11-11-2009, 02:57 AM
i still think he got it off

even if it wasnt, the video evidence was not enough to overturn it IMO

Stacy King said it right, judgment call by the refs.

FML
11-11-2009, 02:59 AM
Who are we supposed to get revenge on? The officiating screwed us. If there was a way to get revenge on them, lets do it.

I don't know, beating the Nuggets in Denver would feel great.

Rocktober2009
11-11-2009, 03:00 AM
I don't know, beating the Nuggets in Denver would feel great.

Good Luck

mjt20mik
11-11-2009, 03:09 AM
NBA.com showed a couple of angles. It was really close, couldn't really see it properly but it could possibly be the refs fault. I honestly think the old refs are seriously messing with games. Couple of Raptor games were really messed (especially the latest one in SA) lots of things were not called for us (35 fouls called on us compared to 22 for SA). Makes me wonder if there is something going on with the refs. Dwight was also recently noted for complaining about the refs, during his 16 min game (in which he was fouled out) versus Detroit.

hornetsfansydne
11-11-2009, 03:14 AM
There was not conclusive evidence.

EXACTLY!! not enough conclusive evidence to rule it was off in time or not... therefore refs should go with their gut feeling. im a ref myself and i believe it was the correct call

SDBearsFan
11-11-2009, 03:25 AM
Whether or not you may agree or not, the fact of the matter is the refs messed this up in two ways:

A. Joakim Noah's rebound should have been reviewed. The clock starts as soon as the ball is touched by a player; are you going to tell me more time ticked off between Noah grabbing the rebound and screaming "timeout" then Brad Miller getting the shot off? No. The clock should have read 0.4.

B. The NBA rule states that the only way a call can be overturned is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE; the call on the court was that the shot was good. There was no conclusive evidence that the shot was NOT good; in fact, it looked like he still got it off. If you look at it from behind, it looks like his fingers are still touching the ball, due to the camera angle.

Terrible, terrible way to end the game, but, nothing we can do about it now.

caseyv415
11-11-2009, 03:52 AM
Shoulda, coulda but didn't.. As for B. Miller getting the shot off in time, thats a big negative.. "If's" are lame.. If I woulda wore a condom that girl I just met wouldn't be having my kid! Damnit:facepalm:

clutchski
11-11-2009, 03:59 AM
It looked like he didn't get it off to me either.

FML
11-11-2009, 03:59 AM
Shoulda, coulda but didn't.. As for B. Miller getting the shot off in time, thats a big negative.. "If's" are lame.. If I woulda wore a condom that girl I just met wouldn't be having my kid! Damnit:facepalm:

It is a sports forum man....this is just fun debate over what the outcome SHOULD have been. This was a great play, and it deserves recognition and debate.

The Bulls deserve to at least have this play talked about. It wasn't "just another one point loss."

Becks2307
11-11-2009, 05:48 AM
the real question is, we are in 2009 shouldnt we have some kinda NBA 2k10 cam that can zoom in and find out for sure ?

anyway looked like fingertips to me

Raoul Duke_91
11-11-2009, 06:24 AM
i guess your a chicago fan. i dont have a rooting interest he still had his fingertips on the ball.

:rolleyes: dude... you have been hatin on the bulls since last years draft.

shot was good, bulls got robbed... i guess this is the universe evening out after that Lebron no foul.

shep33
11-11-2009, 06:33 AM
Isn't there the Derek Fisher rule? I thought that if you caught the ball and shot, there had to be at least 0.4 seconds on the clock. The Bulls had 0.3, so technically it shouldn't count. When you look at the replay it was really really close though... looks like his finger tips might have still been on it, but honestly the refs did a good job, they took about 5 mins looking at it over every angle. Unless you take the video to the CIA and have the analyze it for a month, who knows if he got it off. The review that I saw shows that his fingertips might have still been on the ball. Either way tough call, tough loss, but its only one game, and its early on.

Kyben36
11-11-2009, 08:27 AM
in the game review on NBA.com, the NBA rule is that there has to be clear and conclusive evidence, If that is the rule, I dont think there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call.

HiphopRelated
11-11-2009, 08:34 AM
The overhead shot was clear

Anyway, if the rule states it can't be done in *insert time* it doesn't count

Like a false start in track.

The refs were supposed to waive off the shot as soon as he touched the inbounds. There shouldn't have been anything to overturn.

bctgg27
11-11-2009, 08:42 AM
not the best views, i don't think he made it. At first I did, but when I saw the rewind it looked like the light when off before he got the ball off. Still a very nice shot.

SteveNash
11-11-2009, 08:54 AM
It's pretty obvious it shouldn't count.

MDfootball36
11-11-2009, 09:22 AM
it was still on his finger tips

HouRealCoach
11-11-2009, 09:41 AM
It looked gud 2 me

d00d
11-11-2009, 09:46 AM
the refs called it the way they had bet the game. If it benefited them to let the bulls win they would have called it good. they had the nuggets on the moneyline, the whole world knows the refs are crooked

_Supreme_
11-11-2009, 09:49 AM
I don't think he got it off in time, but the quality of that video doesn't allow to be 100% sure either way.

When there is so little time left on the clock the only way to make a shot like that is to tip it away like a volleyball.

jim51990
11-11-2009, 09:52 AM
it was on his fingertips its clear
i dont see how anyone can say its not they 100% made the right call

fairandbalanced
11-11-2009, 10:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbY_6NX85g4

bal_ravens
11-11-2009, 10:25 AM
No good. Ball was still in his hand.

SchyGuy11
11-11-2009, 10:32 AM
Shot counted initially and their wasn't enough on tape to prove that the ball was still in his hands. If anything the tape backed up the original call. Bulls got robbed!!!!

oshea225
11-11-2009, 10:44 AM
The overhead shot was clear

Anyway, if the rule states it can't be done in *insert time* it doesn't count

Like a false start in track.

The refs were supposed to waive off the shot as soon as he touched the inbounds. There shouldn't have been anything to overturn.

the rule says you can catch and shoot with .03 seconds left, which is what was on the clock in this game. so they had to review it, becasue, by rule, he could have gotten it off. anything less than the .03 has to be no more than a tip (like david lee a couple years ago with .02 left).

~Troy
11-11-2009, 10:47 AM
There should have never been .3 seconds left on the clock anyway, there is NO WAY, when you .6 secs left clock starts when it hits the rim. Noah got FULL possesion of the rebound and had the time to call a TO in .3 seconds...get out of here. Bulls were extremely lucky they even had the chance.

And from the stuff I saw, Millers fingerTIPS were still on the ball. You can get a shot off in .3 seconds, it's entirely possible, but Miller didn't this time, get over it, go on to the next game.

arkanian215
11-11-2009, 10:55 AM
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8263/58833869.jpg

looks like he still has all five fingers on it. if you watched the video, the ball rolled off his fingers when he shot it. he didnt shot put the ball. clearly he didnt shoot it in time.

sixer04fan
11-11-2009, 11:04 AM
He still had the ball on his finger tips. Close but no cigar. Sorry bulls.

arkanian215
11-11-2009, 11:16 AM
devin harris ftw!

theBraveRocket
11-11-2009, 11:28 AM
isn't it funny how chicago fans are the only ones who think it counted?

Lo Porto
11-11-2009, 11:29 AM
Should have been good. Nothing was conclusive. When in doubt, the refs have to go with the amazing play.

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 11:35 AM
isn't it funny how chicago fans are the only ones who think it counted?

Isn't it funny how you obviously didn't look through the whole thread? Plenty of non-Bulls fans said they thought it should've counted. :facepalm:

Double_R
11-11-2009, 11:37 AM
It is so close, by rule I don't get the overturning, if it was called no basket, i would have said it should not be overturned, but it was called good and if it takes 5 minutes to make a call, then it shouldn't be made

All that being said, I don't get how the Bulls were able to get the rebound and call a timeout in .3 seconds... seems to me that is rather quick.

SeoulBeatz
11-11-2009, 11:37 AM
well to tbh, it looks like the ball is still in his hands when the lights go off.

i did a test for myself and paused when the red light goes off the and ball is blatantly in his hands.

sorry bulls fans, but i suggest u do the same, its blatantly obvious.

JasonJohnHorn
11-11-2009, 11:42 AM
In the video filmed from behind Miller, it is impossible to tell because his hand in infront of the ball and it is unclear when it leaves his hand, but from the side angle it becomes quite clear that the ball was still touching his fingers when the .00's came up. I paused the video, the ball was still coming off his fingers and the clock was already at .00. It was an impressive shot, but the right call was made.

As for the Bulls getting robbed, anytime you have a game decided by a basket, it could have went either way. There are always questionable calls throughout the game. There might have been a bad shot clock violation call in the second quarter that took a basket away, or a two bad foul calls early in the first that take your best player off the court for six minutes. As a fan you just have to accept that close games could have gone either way, and as a player you have look at what you could do better. For example, on Jordan's last play as a Bull, Karl Malone grabbed an offensive rebound and Jordan swiped the ball away as Malone brought it down, fouled Malone by racking his arms to pry the ball loose and didn't get called for it. Some would have complained about the non-call, but the bottom line is Malone shouldn't have brought the ball down. When you get the rebound you are supposed to keep the ball up to make an outlet pass or put the ball back up for a shot. Jordan's foul should have been called, but the if Malone had done what he was supposed to do, Jordan would have never had the chance to get the ball to start with. Even when there are bad calls, or non-calls, when the game is close it is never lossed on a single call, it is lost by all the mistakes that have been made up until that point. Some nights both teams play bad and one gets lucky, some nights both teams play great and one gets lucky. But the Bulls did not get robbed. If they had boxed out to prevent that offensive rebound at the end of the game they would have won. That is a mistake the team made, not an official. And while the Bulls did play great defence that game, keeping the Nuggets to 41% from the floor and causing the Nuggets to commit 18 turnovers to the Bulls' 13, they also committed more fouls, and that is really what killed them because the Nuggets got five more shots at the line than did Chicago, and they didn't defend the three as well, or shoot the three well. If the Bulls hadnt committed as many fouls they would have been up by 4 or 5 points on that last play instead of down by 1. As a team, you always have to look at what you can control and what you can do better. Blaming a call isn't going to help you win the next game.

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 11:42 AM
well to tbh, it looks like the ball is still in his hands when the lights go off.

i did a test for myself and paused when the red light goes off the and ball is blatantly in his hands.

sorry bulls fans, but i suggest u do the same, its blatantly obvious.

No offense, but you're probably not pausing it right when time expires and the red light goes off. If it was so blatantly obvious, how did it take the refs 5-10 minutes to figure out the call?

caddiemaster
11-11-2009, 11:42 AM
NBA REFS CHEAT!They suck.......and allways will, allways have i woudnt trust one further then i could throw him!CMON NBA REF!STAND UP FOR YOURSELVES,DEFEND YOURSELVES......WERE ALL CALLING YOU OUT!YOU CHEAT!
WE SEE IT
YOU CANT LIE ANY MORE
NATIONAL BULLSHAT ASSOCIATION

Double_R
11-11-2009, 11:44 AM
well to tbh, it looks like the ball is still in his hands when the lights go off.

i did a test for myself and paused when the red light goes off the and ball is blatantly in his hands.

sorry bulls fans, but i suggest u do the same, its blatantly obvious.

I am a Magic fan and I don't see how it is blatantly in his hands, if you are talking about the view from behind, I see how after the lights start his hand is still following through in the shooting motion, but I can't tell if the ball is touching his hand or not, because he obviously was trying to get rid of it as soon as possible.


PS I don't like the Bulls

G-Menfan4lyfe
11-11-2009, 11:49 AM
starts when it hits the rimThere should have never been .3 seconds left on the clock anyway, there is NO WAY, when you .6 secs left clock . Noah got FULL possesion of the rebound and had the time to call a TO in .3 seconds...get out of here. Bulls were extremely lucky they even had the chance.

And from the stuff I saw, Millers fingerTIPS were still on the ball. You can get a shot off in .3 seconds, it's entirely possible, but Miller didn't this time, get over it, go on to the next game.

EXACTLY! The BUlls got the benefit of being the home team. The clock didnt start until he got the rebound which is bullcrap and the clock started a fraction of a second slower than it should have on the inbounds pass...... why? because whoever controls the clock was trying to cheat for the bulls. so i dont wanna hear that the Refs cheat when the bulls timekeeper obviously does too.

Frezhnitz
11-11-2009, 12:33 PM
he was still touching the ball

td0tsfinest
11-11-2009, 12:51 PM
its extremely close. I think you going to need the .05 screen frame to see if it's actually out of his hand. but I think it was inconclusive so no basket

MiamiHeat
11-11-2009, 12:51 PM
no good

kjoke
11-11-2009, 12:53 PM
no good, i think its pretty obvious that the ball was still in this hands

effen5
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Reviews will be conducted and processed in two minutes or less by the game officials NEW YORK, July 29 --The NBA Board of Governors today approved the use of instant replay to review certain last-second plays at the end of each quarter and overtime periods. The instant replay rule will go into effect beginning with the 2002-03 preseason.
"As we saw last season, last-second plays sometimes occur in which it is impossible for a human being to determine whether the play took place before time expired,” said Stu Jackson, NBA Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations. "In those circumstances, the game officials will now have the use of instant replay to assist them in making the correct call.”

The league’s Competition Committee met in Chicago last month and voted to recommend the use of instant replay to the Board of Governors. A formal recommendation was presented to the Board last week for its approval.

Instant replay reviews will be conducted and processed in two minutes or less by the game officials. The call made during play will only be reversed when the replay provides the officials with a “clear and conclusive” basis to do so.

Instant replay review will be triggered automatically – and not at the discretion of the officials or teams – in the following situations:


FIELD-GOAL ATTEMPTS

A field goal that could affect the outcome of the game is made with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the fourth quarter or any overtime period.
A field goal is made with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the first, second and third quarters.
Once replay is triggered in either of these two situations, the officials will review instant replay to determine whether time on the game clock had expired before the ball left the shooter’s hand. If the shot was timely, the officials may also review tape to determine if the field goal was scored correctly as a two-point or three-point basket, whether the shooter committed a boundary line violation when he released the ball and whether a 24-second clock or 8-second backcourt violation occurred before the shot.


FOULS

A foul for which the resulting free throws could affect the outcome of the game is called with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the fourth quarter or any overtime period.
A foul is called with no time remaining on the clock (0:00) at the end of the first, second and third quarters.
In these situations, officials will review instant replay to determine only whether the called foul occurred prior to the expiration of time on the game clock and not whether the call itself was correct.


If you want to get technical, the Bulls should have won because the refs took four minutes to review the play. If the refs took more then two minutes to review a play, the call on the court stands.

Either way, I think Denver fans and Bulls fans can agree that the refs last night were terrible. From Carmello tripping Deng to Billups missing the FT and JONO calling a timeout at the end with time left was just ridiculous. The refs last night ****in sucked.

arkanian215
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
either way, they're wrong.

effen5
11-11-2009, 01:05 PM
isn't it funny how chicago fans are the only ones who think it counted?

Isn't it funny the thread starter isn't a Bulls fan?

No? Didn't think so.

Cubs Win
11-11-2009, 01:13 PM
its extremely close. I think you going to need the .05 screen frame to see if it's actually out of his hand. but I think it was inconclusive so no basket

Except for that the call was that it was good. So then inconclusive would make it good. You can just say it doesn't count because you can't tell. You'd have to go with the call on the court, as difficult as it may have been to tell.

Stunner
11-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Isn't it funny the thread starter isn't a Bulls fan?

No? Didn't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR2heLZ77aw

Pierzynski4Prez
11-11-2009, 01:17 PM
i thought it could have gone either ways. There were camera angles that showed it could have gone both ways. Should have stuck with the original call.

Young2Kinsler
11-11-2009, 01:19 PM
From an outside opinion, thats a blown call. OF course is going to look like his fingers are still on it, the balls is coming from his hand. There was not near enough clear evidence to overturn that.

If Fisher can catch an inbounds pass with his back to the basket, turn around, jump and shoot in .3 then that shot is good.

theuuord
11-11-2009, 01:20 PM
From an outside opinion, thats a blown call. OF course is going to look like his fingers are still on it, the balls is coming from his hand. There was not near enough clear evidence to overturn that.

If Fisher can catch an inbounds pass with his back to the basket, turn around, jump and shoot in .3 then that shot is good.

Fisher did it in .4....

Stunner
11-11-2009, 01:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodiAAns6Jk

fisher .4

effen5
11-11-2009, 01:36 PM
Ron Johnson Senior Vice President, Referee Operations says he saw a frame by frame and there was a finger on the ball. So it was the correct call.

Now as for the people saying there is no way a person can get a shot off with .3 seconds, Ron Johnson said that if the ball goes in with 0.0 time left on the clock, they will review the play. So it doesnt matter if it was a jump shot or a tip ball, they will review if it was good or not as long as the ball goes in the hoop with no time left.

This was on ESPN RADIO 1000 btw.

arkanian215
11-11-2009, 01:48 PM
i dont see how anyone can say he got it off on time. the pic i posted before clearly showed the backboard lights going off before the ball left his finger tips.

magichatnumber9
11-11-2009, 01:50 PM
I hate Brad Miller and I detest the Bulls, but they got robbed

Ski
11-11-2009, 01:50 PM
The reason why I agree with the original call on the floor:

Miller didn't shoot like a normal shooter would...as in, the ball didn't roll off the fingers since there was hardly, if any, rotation on the ball. For example: think of when a volleyball player sets, how a ball catapults off the fingers/hands...thats what Miller did. The ball was shot and had already exited the hand, and the fingertip, even if it were on the ball, no longer or didn't really have any influence. The ball was caught and flung...

That's the way I saw it :confused:

effen5
11-11-2009, 01:51 PM
i dont see how anyone can say he got it off on time. the pic i posted before clearly showed the backboard lights going off before the ball left his finger tips.

But there are other replays that looks like he got the shots off on time....Comcast Sports Net had some good replays where it looks like he got the shot off on time. Either way it was a very tough call.

daleja424
11-11-2009, 01:51 PM
at home I expected them to give it to the Bulls but I don't believe the shot was good and I also don't believe you can get a rebound and call timeout in 0.3 seconds so the Bulls shouldn't have even gotten a final shot off...

Chronz
11-11-2009, 01:52 PM
One of the main reasons I got into stats was so that I wouldnt flip out over single digit regular season losses. But it looked like the right call to me, either way does this 1 game really change anything about your team?

theuuord
11-11-2009, 01:56 PM
One of the main reasons I got into stats was so that I wouldnt flip out over single digit regular season losses. But it looked like the right call to me, either way does this 1 game really change anything about your team?

clearly you're just a stat geek loser if you think this.

bogmon
11-11-2009, 01:56 PM
i guess your a chicago fan. i dont have a rooting interest he still had his fingertips on the ball.

that seems silly...just because he may have had a fingertip on the ball doesn't mean the shot wasn't in progress....

The shot was off before the buzzer....its not like he still had possession of the ball at the time...

I think all this ticky tack review stuff is starting to kill professional sports.

The fans just got robbed of a special moment because of a fingertip!!!

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 01:57 PM
One of the main reasons I got into stats was so that I wouldnt flip out over single digit regular season losses. But it looked like the right call to me, either way does this 1 game really change anything about your team?

About my team? No. But about my team's tiebreakers with Portland, Utah, and perhaps other WC teams... quite possibly. (Remember both the Nuggets and Blazers got 54 wins last season, and Denver won on the tiebreaker).

Markg
11-11-2009, 01:58 PM
I think everyone is missing the issue here. It really doesnt matter if a tiny bit of finger was still on the ball. Replay should not be used to determine if a a sliver skin is still on the ball in on a miracle buzzer beater for the home team. Replay should be used to overturn obviously bad calls. Miller was, technically, still touching the ball at .1 (imo). But it should still have counted because that's what is in the best interest of the NBA.

If the call on the court is a made basket, the team who made is at home, and the replay doesn't obviously show he still had it, then there is no reason to overturn the call.

Whether your a Bulls fan or Nuggets fan, you should be an NBA fan first..and that call is just plain bad for the NBA. Even if your a Nuggets fan, wouldn't you rather remember that game for the amazing buzzer beater loss and not a by-default win based on nanoseconds on the clock and nanometers of Miller's epidermis?

The refs just turned a "Where Amazing Happens" moment into a "Where Amazing must be replayed inordered to fully be counted as amazing."

Bottom line is that it's bad for the league and none proponents of replay in sports envisioned this as the way it would be used.

arkanian215
11-11-2009, 01:59 PM
if someone can find me a pic of the ball out of his hands and the lights off ill believe them. until then i stick with what my pic proved.

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 02:01 PM
I think everyone is missing the issue here. It really doesnt matter if a tiny bit of finger was still on the ball. Replay should not be used to determine if a a sliver skin is still on the ball in on a miracle buzzer beater for the home team. Replay should be used to overturn obviously bad calls. Miller was, technically, still touching the ball at .1 (imo). But it should still have counted because that's what is in the best interest of the NBA.

Gotta completely disagree with this. I think what is best for the NBA is holding the officiating to the most objective, "technically" accurate standards possible. It will never be perfect, but striving get closer to reaching perfection should be the goal.

BoratSagdiyev
11-11-2009, 02:05 PM
I'm embarassed to say I quit watching this game when billups missed that last free throw.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:06 PM
i guess your a chicago fan. i dont have a rooting interest he still had his fingertips on the ball.

so what do you call all those times you bait in the bulls forum?

Markg
11-11-2009, 02:06 PM
Gotta completely disagree with this. I think what is best for the NBA is holding the officiating to the most objective, "technically" accurate standards possible. It will never be perfect, but striving get closer to reaching perfection should be the goal.

This is a slippery slope. At what point is a ball in the hand and at what point is it not?

Have you ever seen I Heart Huckabees (where does my nose end and space begin)

At some point you just can't tell if it's in his hands or not. It's just too close, and the measurements we use are not that accurate specific enough.

Should we start using robots that have better eyes than humans because they can tell the difference between a micrometer of space between the ball and skin?

Striving for that kind of perfection is imperfection in sports. In situations like this, the calls should be based on how it was perceived in real time, by the naked eye -- because that is how the game is played!

Replay should be used to correct human error, not to enhance human perceptions.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:08 PM
One of the main reasons I got into stats was so that I wouldnt flip out over single digit regular season losses. But it looked like the right call to me, either way does this 1 game really change anything about your team?

absolutely. Especially with the tight race in the East. Last year, one game was the difference between the Bulls getting 6th seed and 7th seed. In 06-07, that was the difference between us getting the 2nd and 5th seed.

SeoulBeatz
11-11-2009, 02:09 PM
Wow are bulls fans being homers on this one.... but i would be too though, so dont fret :).

But cmon, when I initially saw the replay i knew it didnt count and when i checked and PAUSED WHEN THE RED LIGHT WAS FLASHING, his WRIST STILL HADN'T FLICKED FORWARD, the ball was still resting in his hands, its pretty freaking obvious i dont know how people are debating this.


lt was an AMAZING shot bulls fans. You were down one and i bet when he hit that u jumped out of ur seat with all the adrenaline pumping through ur veins out of excitement.

trust me ive felt that feeling before....

then when the call gets overturned ur so pumped up that u disregard common sense, and i guess ur vision as well. u were probably pissed beyond belief. "no way could that amazing shot have been no good, I SAW IT GO IN". no. it was no good.

trust me, ive felt this feeling before too....

i wish i could post a screen shot for u, that shot didnt count. and there's a reason the refs agreed that it didn't count. please don't try to use excuses or say this was some conspiracy by the refs, this game was not rigged. The shot was blatantly no good.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:16 PM
We'll never know for sure however the ref's saw what they saw. And when they looked at it, his fingertips were on the ball. I don't see how it's humanly possible for a human being to shoot in .3 seconds but that's beside the fact. They had plenty of angles, plenty of ways to see it and they made the call. There's no way they started the clock in time, should we say it doesn't count cause there is no real evidence of that. I think it's best to review make sure the call is right and they did. It's up to the ref's not us, they made the call that they saw.

However I am sure having the entire Bulls coaching staff and team yelling at them the entire time didn't make them happy either. Lack of class by them is what I think. But regardless what happened, happened. Shame it came to that but in this world there's no way to say they started the clock at the right time, can never be exact enough. However it was the right thing to review and make the call they thought was right, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY a human being could watch the shot, the clock, his fingertips and make the call on the court it's ludacris to say they shouldn't use replay's or not make the best call they see when looking at that. If they called the shot no good originally but said "Na not enough evidence to overturn" how would the Bulls fans have felt then? They'd have been the ones pleading the opposite case.

Shut up. That has nothing to do with class. If any team got a miraculous shot like that, they WILL be excited. ANY team. You should look up the word class.
And clearly there was enough time for it to work since it was THAT close. You add .01, and it would have be conclusive. So don't give us that crap. You are a Nugget fan, you stole a victory good for you. However, all the camera angles came out inconclusive there was no clear view. And the altitude one wasn't either cause it could have been the shadow, not his fingers. Replay is to help not make the call. Replay was inconclusive so you go with the play on the floor.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Wow are bulls fans being homers on this one.... but i would be too though, so dont fret :).

But cmon, when I initially saw the replay i knew it didnt count and when i checked and PAUSED WHEN THE RED LIGHT WAS FLASHING, his WRIST STILL HADN'T FLICKED FORWARD, the ball was still resting in his hands, its pretty freaking obvious i dont know how people are debating this.


lt was an AMAZING shot bulls fans. You were down one and i bet when he hit that u jumped out of ur seat with all the adrenaline pumping through ur veins out of excitement.

trust me ive felt that feeling before....

then when the call gets overturned ur so pumped up that u disregard common sense, and i guess ur vision as well. u were probably pissed beyond belief. "no way could that amazing shot have been no good, I SAW IT GO IN". no. it was no good.

trust me, ive felt this feeling before too....

i wish i could post a screen shot for u, that shot didnt count. and there's a reason the refs agreed that it didn't count. please don't try to use excuses or say this was some conspiracy by the refs, this game was not rigged. The shot was blatantly no good.

Obviously it wasn't rigged. Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. However, there was no conclusive call. The only angle that shows he might have toughed it at 0 seconds was the altitude. However, you don't know if it was him touching it or the shadow. It was inconclusive. You go with the play on the floor. Effen5 even showed how the rule in the book is that replay is used to help the ruling on the floor not change it if it's inconclusive. Not to mention this game was full of TERRIBLE calls (on both sides).

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:20 PM
at home I expected them to give it to the Bulls but I don't believe the shot was good and I also don't believe you can get a rebound and call timeout in 0.3 seconds so the Bulls shouldn't have even gotten a final shot off...

well they did replay it and said you could... :shrug:

DenButsu
11-11-2009, 02:20 PM
This is a slippery slope. At what point is a ball in the hand and at what point is it not?

Uh, when the ball is touching his hand, it's in his hand, and when it's not, it's not.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Uh, when the ball is touching his hand, it's in his hand, and when it's not, it's not.

Unfortunately those cameras don't have small enough frames or zooomed in enough to see. The altitude angle was a very poor angle since we don't know if it was his fingers or it was the shadow.
There simply wasn't conclusive enough evidence to outright overturn the call. It's ridiculous.

Gators123
11-11-2009, 02:26 PM
For what its worth, The NBA said refs made the right call.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/11/11/bulls.nuggets.replay.ap/index.html


NBA spokesman Tim Frank says "the replay was handled by the book and the referee made the right decision," adding there was no issue with the officials taking extra time.

Chronz
11-11-2009, 02:31 PM
About my team? No. But about my team's tiebreakers with Portland, Utah, and perhaps other WC teams... quite possibly. (Remember both the Nuggets and Blazers got 54 wins last season, and Denver won on the tiebreaker).

Would you rather have the better team, or a team that lucked into a better situation? This has repeated itself just as many times, and the better team usually ends up fairing better. This 1pt loss/win changes nothing of the fact that it came down to a dead halt to determine a winner. So long as my team isnt getting blown out, I dont care about losses. These things happen, I dont believe in miracle terms. If my team were a 50 win squad that went 10-0 in OT I would be extremely scared going up against a 44-win team that had the expecting winning % of a 54 win team.

Rarely are the totals this exaggerated but that just cements home the point that these games isnt very different than all the others.

cubsneedmiracle
11-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Im a Bulls fan.

You could tell his hand touched the ball. I could see it before the replay even happened.

Just to prove at least one of us isn't totally homer.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:37 PM
Im a Bulls fan.

You could tell his hand touched the ball. I could see it before the replay even happened.

Just to prove at least one of us isn't totally homer.

You saw it before the replay. :eyebrow:
I hope you don't mind if I call you full of crap then.
They should make a case study on you with your superior vision then since it took refs 5min to make that call (btw another blunder on their part since instant replay review should only take 2min based on some rule a user posted).

Chronz
11-11-2009, 02:41 PM
absolutely. Especially with the tight race in the East. Last year, one game was the difference between the Bulls getting 6th seed and 7th seed. In 06-07, that was the difference between us getting the 2nd and 5th seed.
Doesnt seem like much of a difference to me, the Bulls got to the playoffs because of a trade they made to bolster their team. That was the difference

Every year, fans of every team will experience wins and losses like this. Rarely are they a revealing barometer of team performance what matters is whether or not you blew them out, they blew you out, or it was a really close game. But losing by a dagger isnt going to determine your destiny. No team will ever lose enough daggers in a year to significantly alter where they would be in the standings.


Ill admit late in the year after teams have already determined where they are as a ball club, these kind of games bear more weight but this early in the season we shouldnt hold so much importance on these type of games. Teams alter their regular season strategies based on after the fact event. Some may rest starters, others may play them more strenuously down a playoff stretch.

So 1pt losses in Feb-March are more significant from a standings perspective, but big picture wise your team winning or losing this game will have very little impact on how good of a team they really are.

In other words, would you rather be a fan of a team that had to rely on winning these type of games consistently to get wins, or would you rather be the team that lost a flukishly large amount of close games, yet dominated in the wins and only lost a few more games overall?

Being 52-30 isnt always better than being 48-34, its why I always call out JB for his HCA references.

kozelkid
11-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Doesnt seem like much of a difference to me, the Bulls got to the playoffs because of a trade they made to bolster their team. That was the difference

Every year, fans of every team will experience wins and losses like this. Rarely are they a revealing barometer of team performance what matters is whether or not you blew them out, they blew you out, or it was a really close game. But losing by a dagger isnt going to determine your destiny. No team will ever lose enough daggers in a year to significantly alter where they would be in the standings.


Ill admit late in the year after teams have already determined where they are as a ball club, these kind of games bear more weight but this early in the season we shouldnt hold so much importance on these type of games. Teams alter their regular season strategies based on after the fact event. Some may rest starters, others may play them more strenuously down a playoff stretch.

So 1pt losses in Feb-March are more significant from a standings perspective, but big picture wise your team winning or losing this game will have very little impact on how good of a team they are.

So what?
If we are competing against say the Hawks for homecourt advantage for the 4th seed and it's a one game difference. How doesn't this game make a difference? Every game counts whether it is in November or March.

Markg
11-11-2009, 02:44 PM
Uh, when the ball is touching his hand, it's in his hand, and when it's not, it's not.

That's a very simple minded approach to this. At some point, you can't tell where his hand stops and space begins.