Devin Harris 50 Foot Buzzer Beater

[PhillipMG]

This shot is amazing. Does anyone else believe he committed a self pass?

Here's the Vid link: <a href="http://www.bettorfan.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/24/devin-harris-not-only-beats-the-buzzer-but-slays-the-sixers/">Devin Harris 50ft Buzzer Beater</a>

 

[Rhody31]

This shot is amazing. Does anyone else believe he committed a self pass?

Here's the Vid link: <a href="http://www.bettorfan.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/24/devin-harris-not-only-beats-the-buzzer-but-slays-the-sixers/">Devin Harris 50ft Buzzer Beater</a>

There is no rule called a self pass. If you are standing still, you can throw the ball up in the air and catch it. If you throw the ball up, you can take two steps and catch it. The rule you are referring to is traveling, which didn't occur in this situation because Iguodala knocked the ball loose.

And now newbie, fetch me my beer.

 

[broadway joe]

I saw that shot live, and there is no possible way that Harris completed that play in 1.8 seconds. He caught the inbounds, took a dribble, went up for the shot, had the ball slapped away, recovered it, took another step and shot. The Nets got some home cooking from the timekeeper on that one.

 

[zebracoy]

I thought the same thing, probably because I can't stand the Nets.

But after watching ESPN show it 45 times in a three-minute span this morning, in addition to NBA Fastbreak (or whatever they call that show now) admitting it looked long and timing it off the inbounds pass last night ... it was a legitimate 1.8 seconds.

 

[king cranium maximus IV]

I thought the same thing, probably because I can't stand the Nets.

But after watching ESPN show it 45 times in a three-minute span this morning, in addition to NBA Fastbreak (or whatever they call that show now) admitting it looked long and timing it off the inbounds pass last night ... it was a legitimate 1.8 seconds.

Yeah, ESPN pretty much broke it down frame by frame. Only thing I can think was off was when it started on the inbounds, but Harris' back was to the camera so it's not blatant when he touches the ball for the first time.

 

[broadway joe]

I thought the same thing, probably because I can't stand the Nets.

But after watching ESPN show it 45 times in a three-minute span this morning, in addition to NBA Fastbreak (or whatever they call that show now) admitting it looked long and timing it off the inbounds pass last night ... it was a legitimate 1.8 seconds.

Yeah, ESPN pretty much broke it down frame by frame. Only thing I can think was off was when it started on the inbounds, but Harris' back was to the camera so it's not blatant when he touches the ball for the first time.

Yeah, that's where I suspect the mistake was. The clock probably didn't start on Harris' first touch. When Iguodala stripped him I thought "game over."

 

[JakeandElwood]

ESPN showed the clock started on time. They did a good job breaking down the play. I didn't think it was possible either, but they showed it was legit.

 

[bostonbred]

Amazing play. Hearing Brook Lopez break it down was hilarious too.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Took 2.00 seconds on my stopwatch... 10 times.

Clock started a quarter-second late.

 

[broadway joe]

I haven't seen ESPN's frame-by-frame, but I tried timing it too, and it never came in at 1.8 or under.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

Amazing play. Hearing Brook Lopez break it down was hilarious too.

Yeah, that guy's definitely got a future in broadcasting!

 

[shockey]

no. freakin'. way he got that show off in 1.8 secs or less.

no. effin' way.

tremendous play nonetheless.

but no. freakin'. way.

 

[broadway joe]

no. freakin'. way he got that show off in 1.8 secs or less.

no. effin' way.

tremendous play nonetheless.

but no. freakin'. way.

Not surprisingly, the Sixers agree.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/02/24/sixers-to-contact-league-office-regarding-harris-miraculous-buz/

The Sixers also said the clock did not start precisely when Harris caught the inbounds pass, allowing him another half-second with which to work.
Sixers spokesman Mike Preston said the Sixers would be in touch with the league regarding the final 1.8 seconds.

 

[old_tony]

So many years ago the NBA did all kinds of study after a controversial shot similar to this one by Trent Tucker of the Knicks. All that study let to them coming up with the .3 rule that says there cannot be a catch-and-shoot with less than .3 seconds left.

As part of the rule, they also recognize that there is a human delay of about 2-3 tenths of a second in the timekeeper from seeing the ball touch a hand and flipping the switch to start the clock.

The Sixers also said the clock did not start precisely when Harris caught the inbounds pass ...

Asking humans to be precise to the tenth of a second is simply asking too much. The Sixers can ***** and moan all they want. The shot was good.

 

[beardpuller]

I guess the call went the only way it could, given the system that is in place, but just because I feel it necessary to disagree with Old Tony, to keep the cosmos in alignment ... if there's a rule that a catch and shoot can't happen with less than .3 left, why is it OK to build an extra two or three 10ths into a 1.8-second span? You want to protect the defending team from getting screwed by human reaction time when there's .3 left, but not when there's 1.8 left?
Harris didn't do all that in 1.8 seconds. If they can go back and overturn the ruling on the court -- which was no basket, ref Violet Palmer said -- by looking at the tape and seeing the light wasn't on when the ball left Harris's hand, they can go back and ascertain that the clock didn't start when he touched the ball, and that the light SHOULD have been on when the ball left his hand.
This is why replay, in every sport, is less than a panacea.