Quote:
Originally posted by aurabass
JR writes:
Quote:
If we think that the shooter's foot touched the line, well, you gotta give her the three anyway. She earned it. She's a nice person and she probably means well.If you take it away because you doubted that it really was a 3, well then you're nothing but a mean old ref.
Um, Aurabell, what if the shooter isn't a Lady Vol? You still gonna give her that 3 when her foot's on the line? Yeah, right.
I think we have a new leader for "Dumbest post made this year by a fangirl".
|
First JR I don't think you should award a three if you see the foot is on the line. I do think you should award a 3 if the picture leaves any doubt.
I would prefer, as I am sure you would, that games be shot in High Definition and that you have a large High Definition monitor to see clearly the relationship of the foot to the line. It's the "when in doubt call it out" rule of thumb that I question.
Secondly - as I said before - as a Lady Vol fan I would have preferred a no-call and overtime in the Baylor UT game where UT benefited from a call with .2 seconds left on the clock. I'm a fan of fairnes first and the Lady Vols second. Let the players decide the outcome when it's a choice between the playes and the officials. The Lady Vols have secured their place at the Summitt of the WCBB world. We don't need officials to help us out.
Third is that "Aurabell" comment a dig at Sally Bell? It's cute but Sally might take offense. As far as "dumbest post of the year" goes I will accept that with some pride coming from you.
Maybe this discussion had some positive impact and maybe it didn't. I learned quite a bit about how some officials think. Thank you for your responses.
If it were up to me I would equip you with the best monitors and cameras available so your decisions could be made with the best views and resolution possible.
Until then I hope that you pay close attention to shadows and bleed (adjacent pixels picking up color and shadow)in the monitors you use and that you take that into consideration in your determination. Those millimeters don't make any difference in the difficulty of the 3 point shot.
all the best to all of you - you do a terrifically difficult job and I appreciate it.
Peace
[Edited by aurabass on Mar 9th, 2005 at 08:09 AM]
|
A few comments to this post...
I have already pointed out to you that it is not a "rule of thumb" but an actual rule. If the officials are unsure the shot must be ruled a 2. That being said your pixel, low resolution monitor theory still holds no water. If the video that they review shows that the shooters foot is on the line (even though according to your research it may not be) then her foot is on the line. There is no way to tell based on that resolution that her foot may be milimeters behind it (read: doubt). Therefore, there is still uncertainty... and what does the RULE tell us to do when there is uncertainty...that's right, its a two. The only thing the monitor can do is show us definitively if the shooter was behind the line. If that is the case then award the three. I think you would agree that if the monitor shows the shooter behind the line then he/she WAS actually behind the line... pixels and low resolution be damned and we can award the three because we are now CERTAIN.