ronny mulkey writes:
Quote:
Bass,
That was a very tough call all the way around. Especially, when you consider that it is still being questioned after 3 camera angles.
Would you go to O.T. and let the players decide because one official had a 3? Or, would say ballgame because one official had a 2? Is it "if its that close, it has to be a 3". Or, is it "if its that close, it has to be a 2"?
What is your proposal? Do away with the cameras? Let the camera experts decide the game?
|
As to your first question: I would err on the side of the tie given that overtime would be the fairest solution. The player was definitely trying to shoot a three to tie. She made a very difficult shot. If there is a dispute err on the side of fairness and let the overtime decide the issue.
As to my proposal I will ask a question:
Are you as officials schooled on camera angles and pixel resolution?
More specifically:
Have you been exposed to any video that shows how a black shoe can look like it is touching a black line from one angle and in reality not be touching the line?
And finally:
If the monitors and camera angles are not sufficient to show these miniscule differences between angles and micrometers of distance - please make a no call judgment and allow the overtime to decide the outcome.
The score in this case was posted at 60 to 60 and a point was taken away. Had the score been 61 to 60 following the shot the same proposal for fairness should apply. When in doubt let the players play it out.
Doubt existed. The camera angles really can't solve it. One official said three and another two. It's a tie. Play the overtime.
And finally - for Jurassic Ref: We "goofball fanboys and fangirls" support the game and the players and by extension the officials. The teams play the game for themselves and for the fans. I'm sorry you seem to find us such a nuisance. From a fan who had no dog in this hunt - we prefer that the players decide the outcome. There was a simple solution here. Play the overtime.