Amare Stoudemire 3-Pointer Should Have Counted for Knicks Against Celtics

I used to get into this debate on my nationally syndicated radio show all the time. When it comes to buzzer beaters, the clock and instant replay shouldn’t be used but rather the determination should be based on the eyeball test — if a guy is shooting at the buzzer and makes it, the shot should always count. Isn’t that what sports is all about? Isn’t it about making a shot at the buzzer, regardless of whether or not the release was .07 seconds after the clock supposedly expired? Plus, what if the operator started the clock too early, or … what if the clock ran too much time off on the previous possession? That’s exactly what happened on Wednesday night.

As Matt Moore pointed out, Paul Pierce’s game-winning shot for the Celtics to beat the Knicks went through the cylinder with 0.8 seconds left. The Knicks should have had that much time left for their final shot, or at least more than their 0.4 seconds. Therefore, Amare Stoudemire’s catch-and-shoot 3 to win it should have counted. Here’s proof of how much time was left when Pierce’s shot cleared the cylinder:

Stoudemire raised for the shot at the buzzer and released it a split second after the buzzer. It didn’t count, but it should have, and the Knicks should have escaped with a one-point win over the Celtics. Tell me this shouldn’t have counted …

Eyeball test my friends, eye ball test. Sometimes we get so technical we get away from the actual game and this is one of those times.

Around The Web

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RZPP74RT5O56WIXGTYTSJ4ESHQ Richard Voniderstine

    Stupidest article I’ve read on basketball in a long time. Why not just give them an extra 5 seconds to help make it interesting… Lame.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RH7TQVYZZIPA2W5NF7QB5AUSY4 Beth

    The refs knew through the “eyeball test” that it wasn’t in, the technology just confirmed it. (Did you WATCH the game?) What you seem to be talking about is “the shot counts because I want it that way” test.
    so yeah… lame

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O4VZ53W2NFR5CAIXGGWCG2QR4E ShereeD

    technically, the clock will stop once the ball has exited the net. There is no proof that the basket is made until that point.

    Therefore, the clock was properly stopped at .4. Think about it, the clock doesn’t stop if the ball is dacing around the rim…it stops when the ball has successfully made it through.

    What a sad claim this article makes.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O4VZ53W2NFR5CAIXGGWCG2QR4E ShereeD

    Now that I have looked, closely at the photo above more closey, I can see now that the ball escaped the net with 0.6…

    HOWEVER, you could easily argue that many other shots could have been similary short changed in time throughout the game, adding up to even more time than just 2 tenths of a second…at that point it becomes irrelevant.

    They weren’t worried about the time on the clock until after the play was over. Doesn’t work that way.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LEDB7FAK2YMIYJWRERDSAZ6ZUM Callhan

    yeahhh righhhtt u cannot catch, turn, and shoot from the 3 point line in 0.6 seconds…. so suck it the celtics deserve the win