The quick reaction comments have already been popping for some time, but an hour and change removed from the ridiculous end to the Raptors-Kings game, we’re starting to get…absolutely no clarity whatsoever. There is no common thread of logic through any of the explanations being offered that lead one to the conclusion that the Raptors should have lost that game, right there, right then.
To refresh, the Raptors inbounded the ball with 2.4 seconds left on the clock. DeMarcus Cousins tipped the inbound, and sometime between when he touched it and when Terrence Ross got the ball, the clock started. Ross then released the ball with 0.4-0.5 seconds left on the shot clock, and it was good, forcing overtime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVkL0nCErKs
After reviewing the play, the replay center determined that 2.5 seconds came off the clock between Cousins touching the ball and Ross releasing the shot. The shot, then, shouldn’t count, and the Raptors lose. Here’s the referee explanation:
Pool Reporter Transcript
Crew Chief Mike Callahan
Postgame – Toronto at Sacramento
NBA Crew Chief Mike Callahan met with pool reporter Tim Bontemps (Washington Post) after the game between the Raptors and Kings in Sacramento tonight. Here is the transcript of that interview:
Question 1: How did you guys determine the ruling?
Callahan: “First of all, the trigger was a clock malfunction. We had the ball deflected, and the clock didn’t start.”
Question 2: “So the replay trigger was the clock didn’t start when the ball was tipped by DeMarcus Cousins?”
Callahan: “That’s correct.”
Question 3: How much time elapsed between when DeMarcus touched and when the clock started?
Callahan: “More than 2.4 seconds.”
Question 4: How was it determined that it was more than 2.4 seconds?
Callahan: “It was 2.5 seconds.”
Question 5: “So from when DeMarcus touched the ball until it was let go was 2.5 seconds?”
Callahan: “Yes.”
Question 6: And there was 2.4 on the clock?
Callahan: “That’s right.”
Question 7: How was the 2.5 seconds determined?
Callahan: “A digital timer on the screen in the replay center, from different angles.”
The NBA has only released that statement for the time being. They had originally tweeted some semblance of a further explanation, only to later delete the tweet. The Last Two Minute Report will come out at some point tomorrow, but it seems somewhat unlikely there will be a correction, since the replay center, not the officials, made the call.
But the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. It actually raises more questions than it answers.
How the hell was Ross supposed to know the clock was wrong? No, he didn’t look directly at the backboard as he gathered, but there are other context clues (namely, teammates and the bench) helping a shooter determine when to let fly, and it seems ridiculous to punish Ross and the Raptors for going off of an incorrect game clock. Even if it’s a bit of a stretch, given the timing and the release, to assume Ross could have gotten the shot off a bit earlier (he thinks he could have, the replay might disagree a bit), the possibility is something that should be determined by the players on the floor, not an assumption in the replay center.
Why didn’t they re-do the play? This is, best I can brainstorm, the logical result of the replay review. You know the clock started late but you can’t purport to know how time would have played out with a different clock, so you re-do the play. It’s not fair, necessarily, but at least nobody is punished for a timer’s error. I am still shocked this isn’t the natural next step in these scenarios.
Wait, why was 2.4 on the clock, anyway? This is a good question. Best I can tell, based on the preceding actions (the timing of Cousins gaining possession on Kyle Lowry’s missed free throw and the ensuing 24-second shot clock violation), there should have been about 3.2 seconds left on the clock for the Raptors’ final play. This is nitpicking (there’s a small, assumed error bar on all things clock-related), but if a review that includes human judgment and therefore human error for fractions of seconds is going to nitpick with a 0.1 second difference and the assumption Ross wouldn’t have changed his behavior, you’re damn right we’re nitpicking with nearly a full second inexplicably gone off the clock in the final few possessions.
Do the Raptors appeal? Almost definitely. The sequence of calls makes no sense, and the Raptors are justified in appealing.
Will they win? Maybe. There haven’t been a lot of successful appeals in the past, but teams aren’t completely winless, and again, the Raptors feel pretty justified here.
What if they win? This is where it gets tricky. The Heat won an appeal a few years back, and the end of the game was replayed. But that game had the benefit of those teams playing again later that year – the Raptors and Kings don’t play again this year, and it becomes difficult, logistically, to find a good time to make up the final 2.4 seconds (and let’s be real, overtime, because Terrence Ross is a cold-blooded crunch-time killer). The Raptors and Kings are both in California just after the holidays, but it’s hard to figure if the NBA (and if both teams) would warrant it a big enough deal to have one or both teams travel and add an extra partial day to an already too-dense schedule. That the outcome might not matter much shouldn’t change the process, especially in November when we don’t know if the game will matter (it could matter for the Raptors’ playoff seeding and the Kings’ lottery seeding), anyway. It’s just a logistical pain in the ass if it needs to be re-played.
What should I think of all this? You guys know by now that I’m not in the camp that referees are inherently biased, and they especially wouldn’t be exhibiting that bias for the Kings in November, of all games. That doesn’t mean they aren’t humans who make mistakes, though, and whether you want to hang it on the clock confusion on the preceding play or on the replay center on the final shot, someone, if not multiple people, messed up here. The Raptors got jobbed, and while foul calls probably even out over 82 games, high-leverage plays like this probably don’t. This is a loss that maybe wouldn’t have been. (That’s not to say it was a sure win, given how the Raptors were playing, but let a team lose for itself.)
Is there a silver living? It plays into the us-against-the-world branding, and it’s further evidence that the only way to hold Terrence Ross down in 2016-17 is to literally change the rulebook to contain him.
What do the Raptors think of all this? Plenty, and nothing, depending on who you ask. Serious shout out to Patrick Patterson for potentially earning himself a fine and letting fly with the tweets most fans were sending, too.
The rare triple no-comment from Kyle Lowry pic.twitter.com/21X7GGZ6tl
— Kenny Ducey (@KennyDucey) November 21, 2016
Please explain to me how T Ross shot doesn’t count.. @NBA
— Patrick Patterson (@pdpatt) November 21, 2016
27.2 – 24 = WHAT? #shotclock
— Patrick Patterson (@pdpatt) November 21, 2016
Looking forward to the apology from the @NBA even though it won’t do shit for the outcome. #haha #raptors
— Patrick Patterson (@pdpatt) November 21, 2016
If you look at the okay before that. It was a shot clock violate because Collison still had the ball in his hand with 3.2 seconds #SMH
— Jared Sullinger (@Jared_Sully0) November 21, 2016
Dwane Casey: “That’s bullshit man.” Whips clipboard to floor.
— Ryan Wolstat (@WolstatSun) November 21, 2016
Casey said he’s never seen that in 37 years of coaching. Said you like to have games decided in a rightful way.
— Ryan Wolstat (@WolstatSun) November 21, 2016
