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

[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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not true. It has already been determined that the stopwatch at the bottom of the screen was running in double time. I 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.

I didn't realize there were bugs in the system. Glad I know now before ever having the chance to use it. As I said earlier, I'm a TV guy which is why I was inclined to take ESPN's numbers. When they showed the initial replay they said they took the in- and out-points on the video from the time the BSU player touched the ball until he released it. Not an exact science either but as was mentioned both came up at less than 0:00.8.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The point is that is what they used. It is not on anyone but the technology, which is my problem with all of this. There is too much usage of technology to determine things that were never determined before. Now you have the expectation of perfect with something that is flawed if not all the factors considered.

Again, this is what they used and what the rules say to use. This is what happens when you get people that never had to rule on anything making rules they do not have to enforce.

Peace

I'm not going to pan the technology but you do have to have someone there with the officials who knows how to use it, at least when it comes to a timing situation. A TV person watching it with them would most likely have picked up on the glitch. I am with you in one sense: Sometimes you can tell when something doesn't feel right. To me it didn't feel like it took 0:00.6 for the game clock to start after the ball was touched.

[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.

[JRutledge]

The point is that is what they used. It is not on anyone but the technology, which is my problem with all of this. There is too much usage of technology to determine things that were never determined before. Now you have the expectation of perfect with something that is flawed if not all the factors considered.

Again, this is what they used and what the rules say to use. This is what happens when you get people that never had to rule on anything making rules they do not have to enforce.

Peace