5 second call - why not make it automatic ?

[Clutch]

A few moments ago on a Knicks-Hornets game a very suspicious 5 seconds inbound call damaged Hornets chances to win the game.

My question is,with all the technology we have now why does official still need to count the 5 seconds ?
First of all it can't be the real 5 seconds (humans aren't machines) and it's also distracting the official.

Just make it like a shot clock with 5 seconds. Start the "inbound shot clock" when the inbounder gets the ball. If clock reaches 5 seconds make the horn sounds and that's it. No more bullshit calls.

[ArbitraryWater]

Love the Idea.

Just need someone to stop the count exactly when the ball leaves the players hands. Could get real close and controversial sometimes, but still better than rn imo.

[Magic731]

I just don't feel that's necessary. It's rare that a 5 second call is ever needed to be made, it's even rarer when it's made incorrectly. I think adding in a whole clock just for this is overkill.

[Lebronxrings]

Yea i said this a while ago. We have all this technology yet we still make stupid mistakes. Then again, the refs wouldn't have an excuse to rig this game if we did have it.

[russwest0]

It's basically a 7 second rule with the refs deciding it. Because 5 seconds hit and then it takes them like 2 more seconds before they'll even blow the damn whistle.

[Clutch]

I just don't feel that's necessary. It's rare that a 5 second call is ever needed to be made, it's even rarer when it's made incorrectly. I think adding in a whole clock just for this is overkill.
I think it's actually made incorrectly quite a lot.

In the Hornets-Knicks game it took maybe 4.5 seconds to inbound the ball and immediately I was like "that can't be a 5 second call" because they called it a lot quicker than they usually do.
Which means they usually call 5 second violation after 6 or 7 seconds,sometimes not even after that.

I think it's not a rare a call and that it's really important. Most of the close games have a lot of inbounds who come close to 5 seconds because defense is getting tough late in games.

[UK2K]

Its not really that hard to make a correct five second call, nor is it distracting.

I'd trust the ref over someone at the scorers table.

[Sarcastic]

You seem mad that the Knicks won. Why aren't you complaining about the travels and the huge discrepancy in fouls and free throws that the refs favored the Hornets with all night?

[TheReal Kendall]

I've rarely seen this called in the NBA. Most of the time it seems like the inbounder gets more than 5 seconds to inbound the ball.

I think it should stay the way it is.

[TheReal Kendall]

You seem mad that the Knicks won. Why aren't you complaining about the travels and the huge discrepancy in fouls and free throws that the refs favored the Hornets with all night?

I didn't see the game, watching it now. But I would rather the league crack down on travels and fouls than the 5 second rule.

There's a lot more important things that the NBA should focus on instead of the 5 second rule.

Op does seem mad.

[Clutch]

You seem mad that the Knicks won. Why aren't you complaining about the travels and the huge discrepancy in fouls and free throws that the refs favored the Hornets with all night?
Why would I be mad that the Knicks won ? I'm a Knicks fan.

I just think that the 5 second rule needs improvement.

[Sarcastic]

Why would I be mad that the Knicks won ? I'm a Knicks fan.

I just think that the 5 second rule needs improvement.


How many clocks do you want on the floor? It's a judgement call, just like defensive 3 seconds. Pass the ball earlier, and it's not an issue.

[Clutch]

How many clocks do you want on the floor? It's a judgement call, just like defensive 3 seconds. Pass the ball earlier, and it's not an issue.
League should try to reduce the number of judgement calls. Just because it's a judgement call some team can be given 7 seconds to inbound the ball and the other team will get 4 seconds.

Why even have shot clocks ? Let's make it a judgement call. If the ref thinks the possession has lasted long enough he should just call the violation.
Just like in handball.

Pass the ball earlier ? You really think that teams purposely wait for let's say 4.8 seconds to inbound the ball ? They would pass it earlier if they could. But often it's not possible,especially when it's a close game.

I'm not asking for something special. Making 5 second call automatic is pretty easy and useful because it would kill the possible controversy about it.

[TheReal Kendall]

I just seen the play and it does seem like it was quicker than 5 seconds.

So I get what you saying but I'm still fine with the refs counting it.

[Sarcastic]

The entire game of basketball is reffed based on judgement. How many times are phantom fouls called on some players, and other times players are allowed to hack the living crap out of each other?

You can watch the replay again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1W-wr1-c2M

He gets the ball at about 1:49 on the clock and passes at 1:54.



Overall you're making a bigger deal about it than it really is. The Hornets still had a chance to win/tie the game after this play, but Kemba missed the shot.

Still seems like you're mad that the Knicks won. :confusedshrug:

[masonanddixon]

Too difficult to coordinate and technology should never replace the human mind, no matter what the frauds at Google want you to believe.

[Clutch]

The entire game of basketball is reffed based on judgement. How many times are phantom fouls called on some players, and other times players are allowed to hack the living crap out of each other?

You can watch the replay again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1W-wr1-c2M

He gets the ball at about 1:49 on the clock and passes at 1:54.



Overall you're making a bigger deal about it than it really is. The Hornets still had a chance to win/tie the game after this play, but Kemba missed the shot.

Still seems like you're mad that the Knicks won. :confusedshrug:
Of course there are a million things in basketball that are based on judgement. But what I want to say is this - there are a few things that can be made automatic and reduce human error,one of them is inbounds shot clock.

It has nothing to do about the Hornets-Knicks game. Where did I say that the Knicks shouldn't have won ?
That situation just got me thinking about this.

And whenever you don't agree with a person you accuse them of hating the Knicks. Even if that person is a Knicks fan. What are you,12 ?

[Sarcastic]

Of course there are a million things in basketball that are based on judgement. But what I want to say is this - there are a few things that can be made automatic and reduce human error,one of them is inbounds shot clock.

It has nothing to do about the Hornets-Knicks game. Where did I say that the Knicks shouldn't have won ?
That situation just got me thinking about this.

And whenever you don't agree with a person you accuse them of hating the Knicks. Even if that person is a Knicks fan. What are you,12 ?


In your first post you said the call "damaged" the Hornets chance to win. They still got the ball back and had a chance to win/tie, with the same exact score as before the call.

It's a judgement call. The Knicks got the benefit of the doubt on it. If you're a Knicks fan, then you should be happy. Instead it seems like you're trying to find ways to diminish the victory, and passing it off to "oh well the refs screwed up, and the Knicks didn't deserve the game". That's how you are coming across.

[bigkingsfan]

Then you're relying on the clock operator to properly start it, which is another element of human error. Then it will slow the game down even more with replay reviews.

[sundizz]

Well, the ref usually makes that hand motion of for each second....so i'd say it is reasonably accurate. Also, it almost never is an issue. I think the only time they should check it by the clock is if the call is made in the last 2 minutes. However, of course it could only be checked if the call is actually made. If it takes a team 5.3 and the refs don't call it then wtv. And honestly, the stuff happening on the court is more important. I'd rather they let a team illegally enter the ball at 5.2 than miss a pushup to get free.

[Clutch]

In your first post you said the call "damaged" the Hornets chance to win. They still got the ball back and had a chance to win/tie, with the same exact score as before the call.

It's a judgement call. The Knicks got the benefit of the doubt on it. If you're a Knicks fan, then you should be happy. Instead it seems like you're trying to find ways to diminish the victory, and passing it off to "oh well the refs screwed up, and the Knicks didn't deserve the game". That's how you are coming across.
It seems like you're trying to get off topic. This thread is not about who deserved the win,Hornets or the Knicks.
This thread is about an idea that would give officials less room to make controversial decisions.

It doesn't have to be used all the time. Make the "inbounds shot clock" only in the last 2 minutes + overtime.

I watched a lot of games where it looks like,and I'm 99% sure that it really was a 5 second violation but the officials didn't want to call anything. It's a close game so they let it go.
Basically it's punishing good defense.

There are enough calls/rules that punish good defense already. Offensive players can basically get continuation calls for anything,floppers are getting benefit of the doubt more often than not,travelling is basically non-existent and so on.

[Crystallas]

The refs could add another official that stays out of bounds that can cover things like this.

But it's a low priority IMO compared to other issues refs have with games. Some of which, the calls are getting better(and some, where the calls are getting worse).

[Burgz V2]

How many clocks do you want on the floor? It's a judgement call, just like defensive 3 seconds. Pass the ball earlier, and it's not an issue.

you see, the thing about basketball is that there are TWO teams on the court. You can't always just "pass the ball earlier" that's such a silly thing to say.