Reason #1: The Al Horford Theory
Al Horford says he tipped the ball as it was inbounded (via the Hawks BasketBlog), which means it's possible the clock started just about when it should have. If that's what happened, then it's really too bad the referees on the scene didn't talk to the media to explain. Here's a photo of the moment (via Hawksquawk).
That moment isn't on the video I linked to earlier, and I'm not sure it is online. But I was able to watch it on Synergy, and my best guess is that Horford's hand did touch the ball, although it's very hard to tell. (I hear you Toronto fans: the last guy you want to trust in this situation is Al Horford, after this.)
Reason #2: The Fudge Factor
Even if you don't believe the "Horford on the grassy knoll" theory ... I have talked to two people who run the kind of timekeeping equipment that was used in that game. They both say that, as a rule of thumb, it is reasonable to expect about a 0.3 second lag between when you decide to push the button, and when you actually get the button pressed.
Think about that. We are arguing about a tenth of a second. And it takes three of those just to get the button pressed.
That's why it is common, in an NBA game, to see a ball go through the hoop, and then have a few tenths come off before the clock stops. Humans can't move much faster than that.
You might say then, well why not click the button a tad before the ball hits the rim then? Why not anticipate? Both scoreboard operators say that the first rule of the business is to not anticipate, because you don't know what will happen. But it's a constant battle, between wanting to have a hair trigger, and wanting to be as accurate as possible.
Sometimes, anticipation or an itchy trigger finger can get in the way. If you're talking about a big chunk of time, then it must be addressed. But when you're talking about a third of the time it takes to even press the button -- there's also a very real chance that it was just an accident. High-definition TVs and slow-motion replay have brought the game a level of precision that humans on the scene just can not match, and expecting them to will always lead to disappointment. (I suspect, in the long run, there will be a replay official courtside with Tivo, empowered to monkey with the clock as necessary in cases like this.)
When I see this play in still photographs and slow motion, it's easy to imagine someone intentionally adding or subtracting a tenth or two. Talking to scorekeepers, however, makes me think that the whole operation is not nearly that precise. That doesn't make it all OK, but somehow it does make it less sinister.
Reason #3: Life's Too Short
I wrestle with this all the time.
I want to be one of those people who does not sweep referee mistakes under the rug. I'm for honesty about these things -- it lets all of us learn, so that hopefully the same mistakes won't be made again and again.
However, at the same time, if you follow basketball for any period of time, you simply can not expect the officiating to be perfect. You can expect it to be damn good -- and I don't say this out of homerism, but after watching some Euroleague and some NCAA, I challenge anyone to find better basketball referees than the NBA has -- but not perfect.
When it comes to tenths of seconds and the like, well, every player who ever played the game has had to deal with some losses that they didn't find fair. It's the NBA's job to limit them, and it's everyone else's job to, at some point, either prove there's some big fat conspiracy, or accept the human error and move on. It's miserable that the Raptors have had two such snafus in Atlanta. And it's miserable that Atlanta was home to that replay. But at some point, wrong though it may feel, there's not much more to be done, other than for the league to come up with more and better ways to improve the accuracy of these kinds of tough calls.
