Video Req - CSU/Boise St - Buzzer Beater waved off....stopwatch used?

[ILRef80]

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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ILRef80

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

[johnny d]

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

To bad us (redacted) would look at the game clock and the clock provided and say, HAY the game clock has gone only .3 seconds yet our stopwatch has gone .6 and then use something called common sense and make an executive decision.

There is no way that watching that in real time or slo mo I would believe the "stopwatch". If the conference wants to punish me for NOT following faulty equipment they would be writing their own obituary.

Link for evidence: http://deadspin.com/conference-video...end-1758594286

[mtn335]

I definitely don't think this crew should be suspended, but a "lesson learned" here - before you use any timing device, watch it yourself in slow motion. You can time the ticks in your head and get a sense for how long anything is. I did that and I figured that actual time elapsed was in the 0.7 ballpark, and then I did frame analysis and got 0.63 or so.

I'm a professional engineer and we use all sorts of calculating and analytical tools. The rule is, though, the user is responsible for making sure the output makes sense.

This output didn't make sense. I wouldn't suspend the crew, but I WOULD say that it's the job of the officials to make sure what the tool says makes sense. In this case, it was off by a factor of 2.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by deecee

To bad us redacted would look at the game clock and the clock provided and say, HAY the game clock has gone only .3 seconds yet our stopwatch has gone .6 and then use something called common sense and make an executive decision.

There is no way that watching that in real time or slo mo I would believe the "stopwatch". If the conference wants to punish me for NOT following faulty equipment they would be writing their own obituary.

Link for evidence: Conference Video Reveals Boise State-Colorado State Ending Botched By Bad Technology

Once they determine that the game clock did not start on time, there is no reason for them to look at it again. The protocol is very straight forward and simple you use the stopwatch to determine when the first touch is and if the ball is released before the amount of time remaining in the game. They are worried about making sure they start the stopwatch at the right time and the release of the shot. They are not there comparing the speed of the stopwatch and the game clocks. Now, after this incident, maybe it will be part of the protocol. But prior to this instance, there was no reason to suspect there would be a difference between the stopwatch and the game clock.

I doubt you have any actual experience using the video replay system, nor have you ever had to actually make a decision about the outcome of a game based on information you were able to get from such a system. But I am sure you would do a much better job then three highly experienced officials who have used this system numerous times throughout their careers. You not only would have the foresight to compare the stopwatch and game clock, even though that isn't part of what you were trained to do, you would have also been able to detect any other potential malfunctions in the system and correct them on the spot as well.

[deecee]

Johnny I work in software design/development so I wouldn't need to have replay system experience to know when time, or something doesn't add up.

After watching this realtime the FIRST time and then reading that the officals said that 1.4 seconds had elapsed the first thought was, "NO FREAKING WAY". If they had said .9 or 1 second ya I wouldn't have questioned it but I have been involved with basketball (from playing, coaching and officiating) to know that the play that happened was within the realm of .8 seconds. 1.4 is a FAR cry.

So the short answer is YES I would have questioned the stopwatch. Would I have been able to come up with a solution? Maybe, maybe not. But I would have raised an alarm and tried to verify the 1.4 using a manual stopwatch and a live replay most likely.

It's good to have protocol in place but we can't be mindless robots.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by deecee

Johnny I work in software design/development so I wouldn't need to have replay system experience to know when time, or something doesn't add up.

After watching this realtime the FIRST time and then reading that the officals said that 1.4 seconds had elapsed the first thought was, "NO FREAKING WAY". If they had said .9 or 1 second ya I wouldn't have questioned it but I have been involved with basketball (from playing, coaching and officiating) to know that the play that happened was within the realm of .8 seconds. 1.4 is a FAR cry.

So the short answer is YES I would have questioned the stopwatch. Would I have been able to come up with a solution? Maybe, maybe not. But I would have raised an alarm and tried to verify the 1.4 using a manual stopwatch and a live replay most likely.

It's good to have protocol in place but we can't be mindless robots.

It is easy for you and me to say what we would or would not do in that situation, after the fact. You say you would have noticed and done something and that we cant be mindless robots. (redacted) Those guys get paid serious money to get calls right, know the rules, and follow established protocols. When they screw things up, especially misapplying a rule or stepping outside of established protocols, they have games and therefore serious money taken from them. Also, as I said before, they have done this before, they have seen others at their level do it before, and up until that game, nobody has raised the possibility that this problem could occur. You say they could have used a manual stopwatch and timed it at regular speed. I would say from their experience, they have no reason to believe they would be more accurate using that method than having the play run in slow-motion. I highly doubt if you were on this crew, you would be willing to step outside of the established protocol and risk serious money to potentially get the call right. It sucks that the call was ultimately wrong, but these guys will not be punished because they followed the protocol to the letter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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 deleting the insult saying the officials did something wrong in this situation, you, as usual, are sadly mistaken.

Agreed.

[deecee]

No way should they suspended nor did they actually do anything wrong. The tools provided them were faulty and I wonder if any of them questioned that at the time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

No way should they suspended nor did they actually do anything wrong. The tools provided them were faulty and I wonder if any of them questioned that at the time.

This is a fair point. I'm guessing this tool is being evaluated at this point.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by ILRef80

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

Overly officious? How? It is mandatory for the officials to use instant replay to determine whether a try for goal entering the basket was released before the reading of zeros on the game clock.