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

[deecee]

(redacted) No where have I said, or do I believe, they would or should get punished. Secondly just because they work at this level doesn't mean they don't make mistakes (and this isn't one of them really). We see D1 guys make mistakes quite often.

I also admit that I may or may not have had a viable solution to the issue if it were me. I don't think they walk on water and a couple of the guys on the crew have some lengthy quotes out there and they all seem 100% sure with their conclusion. It will be interesting if any of them say, "Hey at the time we did discuss this but we followed the protocol and this is what happened so we went with it."

I, honestly, highly doubt that. And to get a call like this right/wrong, if I had any doubt in the tools provided I would try to come to the truth. Maybe I get suspended, or maybe I get a big thank you for preventing egg on my conference's face. I can live with either.

[Adam]

Moderator note:
Stop with the insults. Now.

[RefCT]

It was said earlier and I will say it again, what it comes down to (from my view) is that the officials followed protocol but the protocol was flawed. You can't blame them, blame the software package and protocol. Based on the Deadspin article, the fact the virtual stopwatch was set to time at 30 fps, but the video was 60 fps, likely led to the time being double what it should have been.

The bigger problem here is the MWC needs to recognize that mistake and work with the vendor to fix it, or change the protocol and allow officials to use something like a traditional stopwatch instead of the faulty software package.

With hyper analysis by all outside sources (including us) due to everything in HD, mistakes like this need to be responded to and adjusted and/or fixed quickly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RefCT

It was said earlier and I will say it again, what it comes down to (from my view) is that the officials followed protocol but the protocol was flawed. You can't blame them, blame the software package and protocol. Based on the Deadspin article, the fact the virtual stopwatch was set to time at 30 fps, but the video was 60 fps, likely led to the time being double what it should have been.

The bigger problem here is the MWC needs to recognize that mistake and work with the vendor to fix it, or change the protocol and allow officials to use something like a traditional stopwatch instead of the faulty software package.

With hyper analysis by all outside sources (including us) due to everything in HD, mistakes like this need to be responded to and adjusted and/or fixed quickly.

I bet the MWC is using a similar system as most conferences are using. This just happened to be the situation that was high profile.

I am not sure they ultimately got this right, but it appears the clock did not start on the touch for some reason. Either way, they followed the system. Again the officials do not create the system.

I think this is just more evidence of over reviewing everything. If these guys count this basket, then someone is going to claim they did not have the clock start properly and we have a different conversation. The problem is ultimately that we are using an impossible standard for most of these situations. We are requiring technology to save every possible play instead of just doing what is obvious to us for the most part.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I bet the MWC is using a similar system as most conferences are using. This just happened to be the situation that was high profile.

I am not sure they ultimately got this right, but it appears the clock did not start on the touch for some reason. Either way, they followed the system. Again the officials do not create the system.

I think this is just more evidence of over reviewing everything. If these guys count this basket, then someone is going to claim they did not have the clock start properly and we have a different conversation. The problem is ultimately that we are using an impossible standard for most of these situations. We are requiring technology to save every possible play instead of just doing what is obvious to us for the most part.

Peace

I agree as to technology. The clock was started well within the normal margin of error for everything but a last second shot. We need to leave well enough alone.

As it was, the replay failed though the officials followed correct procedure. It would have been better if one of them had realized the stopwatch didn't make sense, but, given this had never happened before, I don't think you can expect that.

I think you can bet on this never happening again as from now on officials will verify the stopwatch speed against the game clock.

[JRutledge]

Looks like it is late.



Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks like it is late.



Peace

Not true. It has already been determined that the stopwatch at the bottom of the screen was running in double time. It counted 0.2 seconds for every real 0.1 second. So, the actual time taken was half of what it indicated.

The game clock, once it started, dropped to 0.7 as the stopwatch changed from 0.6 to 0.7. The game clock was at 0.4 when the stop watch hit 1.2/1.3. So, the game clock changed 0.3 in the same time the stopwatch changed 0.6.

The officials trusted the technology on the screen without realizing that the stopwatch was changing twice as fast as the game clock. I wouldn't expect them to verify that the technology was working right...that isn't their job.

It has been determined to be a bug in the software or improperly configured software.

[deecee]

Jrut, thats the faulty clock. you will see the stopwatch and the game clock are moving at 2 different speeds. Either the game clock is broken or this replay clock is. But there is no way. This may just be what was released to show what the officials used.

When the game clock is at .6 the stopwatch is at .8, and when the game clock reaches .4 the stopwatch is at 1.2.