If that was the case then in real time the number would be LESS than .7 or .63 NOT greater.

I they used real time with a slow-motion replay? Think this through again. :D

Hah, that would be embarrassing, but can't wave it off with a certain someone's ability with technology. :D

Broken down even further.
 

It does appear they did not start the clock on time. Whether it got off is another issue.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IGncbhKgDxg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

If the clock wasn't started upon touch, that would be the officials' fault since they are using PTS.

Or a malfunction of the system. The officials and the table are supposed to be used at the same time, unless the system has changed.

Peace

Ummm no.

Even in the video with the overlayed stopwatch, it still didn't start the instant it was touched. So, using the ending time to say it was off by 0.8 is still not accurate.

I don't think the clock was started when the ball was first touched, but when the ball was released, there was clearly still 0.5 seconds left on the block. That would mean the player would have had to be holding the ball for at least an additional 0.6 seconds before the clock started for this to be ruled no basket. Upon watching the video I see maybe 0.2 between first touch and the clock starting, but certainly not 0.6. I don't know how the timing system overlay works, but in my opinion, it did not work on this play.

Ahh I get what he was now saying. They used real time stopwatch with a slow motion replay.

Is that a swipe at the conference or a vote for the officials?

If a swipe at the conference...how sad is it that they have no (or little) credibility?

If for the officials, what difference does who they are make? Everyone $crews the pooch now and then. They are humans...not Gods.

Vote for the officials. We're all human, but some humans are better officials than others. And these three are some of the best.

This looks to be a pretty bad miss. Even if it started late, it certainly wasn't excessive. This is being overly officious, IMO.

I wouldnt say OO, but I would say complicating a pretty straightforward process. I don't see a disparity of .6 seconds as they claim. Unless they did use a real time timer with a slow motion replay :eek:

If you read the article and watch the video the conference put out about the play, you will see that the officials did this exactly by the book and used the technology and tools they were supposed to use. The stopwatch is part of the software package, it is supposed to adjust to the speed of the replay you are watching, therefore it was not possible for the officials to use a real-time stop watch on a slow-motion play. Now if you want to make the argument that the software didn't work properly or needs to be fixed, that is another issue, and not something for the game officials to be concerned about. For those of you (redacted) saying the officials did something wrong in this situation, you, as usual, are sadly mistaken.