I got stuck watching some basketball team tonight – some purple people from Los Angeles, and I guess some white people from San Antonio, and they were playing in San Antonio.
Actually, I wasn’t watching the game – I was reading about how to put my homebrew in a keg instead of 50 bottles. But my wife was watching the game, and I was next to her.
So, she yells to me roughly this: “why do they always do that when there’s a little bit of time left on the clock?”
I don’t know. I detest basketball, and don’t care. There’s no puck nor a football ball, so I’m dumb about it. But I did see what she was referring to, and now it’s driving me nuts even though I don’t care. So, anyone help us out?:
The white team was winning 73 to 71, having scored their leading points leaving 0.4 seconds on the clock. Okay, the ball gets turned over the purple guys. But instead of starting at their end of the court like the always do, the start right in front of their target goal! And of course with 0.1 second on the clock, they just happen to get in the winning two-point goal thingie.
The purple team, though, did kind of give me the urge to run out and buy some Crown Royal.
Oh, yeah, there’s a question here: why didn’t the purple people have to start in a proper spot? Why? Justification? Seems kind of sucky the way they won, and it hurts me to say that because it kind of disavows my adamant non-caring.
In the NBA, in the last two minutes of the game or overtime, you have the option of advancing the ball to midcourt by calling time out after the other team’s possession. When the Spurs (white team) scored, the Lakers (purple) called time out, which allowed them to inbound the ball from closer to their own basket.
It’s just an NBA rule. And you can only move the ball to halfcourt after a made shot by the other team or if the other team misses, the rebounding team does not try to advance the ball upcourt.
The rule’s been in place for a very long time in the NBA. Why? Because the NBA thinks it a good thing to give teams behind a better chance of winning the game on a last second shot.
Is there any reasonable justification for this rule? I mean is it designed solely for the puporse of making the game interesting on the one time this may happen? Seems overly complicated way of doing things. Plus it just seems like it’s unfair. “Ok, you start here, unless you’re losing and your only possible way to win is start on the opposite end of the court.”
Balthisar, that’s the only reason. To make the games more competitive at the end. Same reason the clock stops after baskets for the inbound pass towards the ends of games.
You’re right, of course. I don’t mean “fair” in the sense of a whiny little kid screaming to his momma about having to go to bed at 8 o’clock. Really, it just dumbfounded me seeing for the first time like this. Seems like the English language is more consistent than NBA rules!
I meant to add that my wife is an ex intercity (not innercity or intracity) basketball player on some womens’ league, and she was blabbing about something to do with “international rules” and not knowing what was going on at the end there.
I guess I should reiterate that I came into this not really caring one way or the other, and now I shouldn’t make opinions because of that!
