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

I wasn't watching the game, but my Twitter timeline was in a bit of an uproar this evening.

From The Coloradoan
A slow-mo video.....which isn't particularly helpful
Coloradoan

Just saw the highlight on SportsCenter...no idea how they came to waving off that basket. SC showed it from two angles, timed it both times, and got .7 and .63

I've never seen it done before but under NCAA 2-7-6 they're well within their rights to use a stopwatch to correct errors and mistakes. That being said, I'm not sure where they got an extra 0.6 seconds between the player touching the ball and the clock starting but I'm also not the one using the stopwatch.

As a TV person I'd be inclined to trust ESPN's timing since they'd be using the time code from the video. But again, I'm not the one with the stopwatch.

Not sure if they had slow motion video or not, but watching the video at the link above and using my handy dandy stopwatch on my phone this bucket should have been good.

cant wait for the conference's take on this. I think the officials screwed up and got this wrong.

Deadspin posted on this: Stopwatch-Wielding Referees Blow It, Overturn Boise State Buzzer-BeaterÂ*

According to the stmt, they used a stopwatch available on the replay monitor? Wow, that is a horrible idea for many tech reasons.

Exactly, doesn't the video they have available to them have time stamps on it? If not, why not?

The conference has issued a statement that the call was correct.

I didn't really have many doubts with the crew that was on the floor.

According to Dave Hall's statement, released by the MW, this wasn't just a "stopwatch" as most people think of it.

“The protocol on any last-second shot, after the shot is made, you go to the monitor to review whether the shot was taken in time or not. We followed the protocol, we went to the monitor and we reviewed whether the shot was taken in the 0.8 seconds that was on the game clock when the ball was inbounded. We did that and we noticed that the game clock was not started upon touch. We then used a stopwatch overlay from the monitor review system to determine when he touched it and then figure out how many tenths of a second it took from the time he touched the ball until the time he released the ball and whether he was able to get that shot off in that 0.8 seconds. After reviewing that several times we determined that the shot was late. It was not taken in that 0.8-second time frame, but actually closer to 1.2 or 1.3 time frame. As a result, the basket does not count.”

If this was a mistake, it's a mistake with the stopwatch overlay.

citation please.

How? It's CLEARLY incorrect. It may not be the fault of the officials necessarily, but he clearly got the shot off.

Play in question....
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cI7qYBkbeIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

:confused:

A frame-by-frame analysis shows that the call was wrong. Boise got hosed.

Maybe they timed a slow motion replay???

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.

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.

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

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

Moderator note:
Stop with the insults. Now.

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

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.

Here is the official video playback from the MWC.
 

Looks like it is late.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6eJsPC_ca3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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.

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 can't wait until robots officiate. Do you think they will take ANY crap from coaches or players. Coach's toe is on the coach's box line - T. Kid looks at the ref wrong - T. Coach yawns - T.

The rules they made are just fine. There was a bug in the program, not a problem with the rule or the protocol. Like it or not, technology is far better at these things than humans. People expect it to be right but mistakes are still made. This will be fixed and it will not happen again.

We could do it like soccer and just have the referee decide the game has ended somewhere after the time actually runs out.

We could also do like football and have the game end at the end of the play that's underway when time expires. For basketball, I would say that the game ends when neither team is in team control after time has expired. If nobody's in control, game's over at once; if control is given up for a try, the game extends through the end of that try.


...nah, I like what we have better.

Better they find out now with a game (relatively) no one cares about than have something like this come up in March.

The same problem still exists....it has just moved. It may be less frequent, however. There would still be the question of whether a player/team obtained control before or after time expired.

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.


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.

• http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=...=80&scale=cropAndy KatzESPN Senior Writer

• Email
• print
• comment

Boise State wants a victory over Colorado State after the Mountain West Conference on Friday reversed its initial call and said a last-second 3-pointer by James Webb III should have counted and given the Broncos an 87-85 overtime victory earlier this week.
"Absolutely,'' Boise State coach Leon Rice told ESPN on Friday night. "A rule was broken in that they used a video that was not synced up, and you can't do that.''
Colorado State beat Boise State 97-93 in the second overtime, after Webb's shot was discounted to end the first. The banked 3-pointer was initially called good by the officials, but after huddling up at midcourt and watching a video replay, they overturned the call. The league then issued another statement Thursday and released the video it used to prove its point.
Initially, officials said the elapsed time of the shot took more in the range of 1.2 or 1.3 seconds instead of the 0.8 seconds that were remaining on the clock. But further video analysis was called for.
On Friday, the conference said there was a discrepancy between the "rate at which the embedded digital stopwatch advanced and the rate at which the game clock regressed during the instant replay review.'' The MWC's statement went on to say the officials made the correct decision with the evidence they had at the time. But the conference office said it didn't see a video at full speed from the production truck.
Ultimately, the conference said the one replay angle from the opposite baseline camera the officials were using wasn't at full speed when it was seen on television, and as a result the embedded stopwatch outpaced the video, giving the officials a false reading. The conference concluded by saying after measuring the timing of the shot again that Webb's shot should have counted and did get off within the 0.8 seconds remaining.
Rice said one of the officials told him Wednesday that they would take as long as needed to get the call right.
"That being said, we have an opportunity to get it right now,'' Rice said.
The Mountain West cited Rule 5, Section 5, that a result of a game cannot be overturned.
"We're doing all we can,'' Rice said. "I don't believe there is a formal protest, but it wasn't human error, it was a technological error, so the game should be over and Boise should get the W.''
Boise State (16-9, 7-5) fell into a fourth-place tie in the Mountain West with the loss. It's a game behind second-place teams Fresno State and New Mexico in the loss column and four games behind first-place San Diego State.
"It makes a big difference in the conference,'' Rice said. "We would be in second.''

The above post reverses what was stated below in this previous release.

I had to laugh at the comment attributed to DVSport stating that its system worked correctly when we can all see that it didn't. (deleted)

======================================
<section id="module-position-OzmfD5XS9H4" class="storytopbar-bucket story-headline-module story-story-headline-module">Mountain West: Refs made right call in Boise State vs. CSU game

</section><section id="module-position-OzmfD5WgcdQ" class="storytopbar-bucket priority-asset-module story-priority-asset-module"></section><section id="module-position-OzmfD5XPFSw" class="storytopbar-bucket story-byline-module story-story-byline-module">http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a329...04088362-n.jpg Matt L. Stephens, [email protected] 4:10 p.m. MST February 11, 2016

[Removed this video as it appears in a prior post in this thread.]


</section><section id="module-position-OzmfD5XZ_7g" class="storytopbar-bucket google-survey-module story-google-survey-module"></section> Official stopwatch replay video of controversial ending of the first overtime between Boise State and Colorado State on Wednesday at Moby Arena. Mountain West



<section id="module-position-OzmfEN7Emlc" class="storymetadata-bucket expandable-photo-module story-expandable-photo-module"><aside itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="single-photo expandable-collapsed">http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9794...SI-9107228.jpg
(Photo: Ron Chenoy/USA TODAY Sports)


</aside></section>



The referees made the correct call. That's the official statement coming from the Mountain West on Thursday, after carefully reviewing the controversial overturned call at the end of the first overtime between Boise State and CSU on Wednesday at Moby Arena.

There were 0.8 seconds remaining when Boise State's Anthony Drmic inbounded to James Webb III. Webb appeared to have made a miraculous game-winning 3-pointer, getting the ball out of his hands with 0.4 seconds showing on the clock, but after going to the monitor, the officiating crew used a stopwatch system to determine that the clock started late and that the play took closer to 1.3 seconds; therefore, the basket did not count. The video of that play and the overlay officials used is above.
CONTROVERSY: Breaking down finish between Boise State, CSU
That ruling was correct, the Mountain West office said in a news release. David Hall, Verne Harris and Tom O'Neill used the correct protocol to fix the timing error.

"The Mountain West Coordinator of Officials, the NCAA National Coordinator of Officials, the NCAA Secretary-Rules Editor and the MW Conference office have reviewed the play extensively and consulted on the administration of the video review. It has been determined the game officials executed the appropriate protocol and made the correct call.
It is standard procedure to review potential game-ending baskets and the game officials came to their determination utilizing the official video and embedded clock technology within the approved multi-camera capture instant replay system. ...
It is clear 1.2 to 1.3 seconds elapsed from the time the player touched the ball to the time the shot was released, and that the game clock did not start for several tenths of a second after the initial touch. Thus, the basket did not count – regardless of what was ultimately reflected on the game clock or what other unofficial video replays may appear to indicate.
Finally, some question has been raised regarding the preceding play, where Colorado State turned the ball over. The Mountain West has also reviewed that play utilizing the official replay system and determined the clock stopped correctly at 0.8 second(s) once the official blew his whistle for the backcourt violation. His whistle stopped the clock automatically via the Precision Timing System at that instant."

But when watching the video, it appears to (sic) stopwatch time is moving faster that the arena's clock. The Coloradoan contacted DVSport, which said its system worked correctly and that all questions should be directed to the Mountain West Conference. The conference has not commented about the stopwatch's speed.
CSU won the game 97-93 in double overtime.
For insight and analysis on athletics around Northern Colorado and the Mountain West, follow sports columnist Matt L. Stephens at twitter.com/mattstephens and facebook.com/stephensreporting.

I think what DVSport is saying is the system worked properly given the video clip that was used, which is correct. They're putting it back on the video coordinator and the officials for either not noticing it was a slo-mo clip or not asking the people in the truck to only use regular-speed clips.

Yeah it's semantics but they have a product to protect.

Agree...they may be right, that their system worked correctly. The operator of the equipment may be required to configure it for the format of the video being fed to it. If so, then it could be operator error (the video production crew, not the officials), not a software bug.

Update: New interp for Men's and Women's.

"Due to a recent technological issue which arose during an instant replay review, the men’s and women’s rules committees are issuing this interpretation for the use of the stopwatch in future games. When it is necessary to correct a timing mistake by the use of a stopwatch, only the digital stopwatch provided to the timer per Rule 2-10.1 may be used by the officials. The use of any other clock or timing device (including those that may be seen on instant replay equipment) is not authorized."

Here is the full excerpt. Not sure if they are doubling down are providing an escape clause.

"Per Rule 2
-
10.1 the official timer must be provided with a digital stopwatch for use by the
timers and
officials during the course of the game to correct timing errors. For example:
1.
The game clock is stopped when it should have been running.
2.
The officials believe the game clock failed to start correctly when the ball was legally
touched by an i
nbounds player who then releases the ball for a successful try.
3.
The timer fails to start the game clock correctly.
4.
To determine the amount of time to put back on the shot clock when the shot clock operator
mistakenly resets the shot clock.
These are exa
mples only and do not exhaust the possibilities for other uses of the digital stopwatch.
Due to a recent technological issue which arose during an instant replay review, the men’s and
women’s rules committees are issuing this interpretation for the use of
the stopwatch in future games.
When it is necessary to correct a timing mistake by the use of a stopwatch, only the digital stopwatch
provided to the timer per Rule 2
-
10.1 may be used by the officials. The use of any other clock or timing
device (includin
g those that may be seen on instant replay equipment) is not authorized.
This interpretation is not intended nor does it replace or retract the ability of an official to correct other
timing mistakes by using an on
-
screen game clock display being shown o
n an instant replay monitor
as long as the display is synchronized with the game clock or is an actual live picture of the game
clock. Rule 11-1.1"

I am more-than-a-little confused on when to use the digital stopwatch and when to use the video timer. I'd expect a few questions on next year's test about this.

And, despite the clearly stated "the timer must have a digital stop watch, not a phone, not a second hand on a watch" -- I wonder how often that is actually followed at the D-2 and D-3 levels (of course, the use of monitors is relatively rare at those levels as well).

I doubt it is ever followed at D3 level since there are not many, if any, that use video review. However, at least around here, that has changed. Recently a crew used the live stream feed, and yes the computer was at a table within 12 feet of the court, to decide if a shot at the end of regulation was good or not. Since then, the league has issued a memo that using this application is only allowed for game ending shots. None of the other replay situations can be used in their games.

Yes, there's one conference (maybe the same one) that uses the monitor only for that situation. It will become more common and more expanded as we move forward, though.

My guess is that more schools will have a computer with the streaming feed moved to the table or within limits of use for replay, once they all start hearing about it being used in the cciw. Most of the schools are already streaming their games.

If you work in any D2/D3 conferences where the NCAAW's SRE is within arm's length - as I do - the table probably has a stopwatch, trust me. I carry one for just such an emergency and I've given mine to the table crew more than a few times this season. Remember, the stopwatch isn't just for monitor reviews. It's supposed to be for timing timeouts and the intermission between the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th periods.

+1

Is there some reason the replay video the officials use can't be shown with the time stamp visible? Then all you do is basic math. Time stamp of last frame - time stamp of first frame= total time. Simple.

A digital stopwatch is great, but there is no way to "slow" down a stop watch if you are going frame by frame, especially on buzzer beater type plays. You are then forced to simply re-time game speed replays and hope you get the clicks on the stopwatch right.

It can. You just have to ask the production truck for that feed but if you don't ask, you won't get. The crew probably didn't feel it needed it since DV Sport has its own system built in.

And we now know that DVSport has as much correctness as a certain poster on this forum.

Please cease and desist with the gratuitous insults, even if they're made to unnamed posters.

He's talking about YOU, Adam! ;) :D ;) :D :p

A revision was just posted to the Memorandum on the Arbiter page. I'm even more confused now about when officials are allowed to use the monitor, and the procedures for using the digital stopwatch.

Due to a recent technological issue which arose during an instant replay review, the men’s and women’s rules committees are issuing this interpretation for the use of the stopwatch in future games.

When it is necessary to correct a timing mistake by the use of a stopwatch, only the digital stopwatch provided to the timer per Rule 2-10.1 may be used by the officials. The use of any other clock or timing device (including those that may be seen on instant replay equipment) to correct a timing
mistake is not authorized. Further, officials should ensure that the timing mistake being reviewed is in real time.

This interpretation is not intended nor does it replace or retract the ability of an official to correct
other timing mistakes by using an on-screen game clock display being shown on an instant replay
monitor as long as the display is synchronized with the game clock or is an actual live picture of the game clock. Rule 11-1.1.

The bold portions are the revisions.

I have a feeling the change means we can no longer use time codes superimposed on a replay by the TV production truck. I've sent in an "Ask Jon" question for clarification.

That is a huge step backwards, IMO. Yes, there was a bug. So fix it. The timecodes in the video are super accurate. They just counted them incorrectly.

There's a difference - from what I can see - between the time code used by DV Sport and the time code generated by replay machines in the production truck.

In the production truck (or an edit room), the time code will slow down/speed up relative to the speed at which the clip is playing unless the clip itself is altered. In other words, if I play the unaltered clip at 50% speed the time code will count at half-speed. DV Sport's equipment - at least in this case - showed the time code relative to how long the clip actually played, regardless of the speed of the clip involved. That's why I mentioned earlier the idea of having a TV person watch the video with the officials. I would've picked up on the speed/counter aspect because I work with editing equipment. Someone else wouldn't because it that isn't something in their heads.

Right. But from this memo, it seems that neither are allowed to be used...

As I thought, we can't use time codes generated from the TV production truck.

Okay, but what about the digital stopwatch that is part of the DV sports equipment?

W need to use the separate digital stopwatch that is at the table. Period.

CBS Must Have An Extra Stopwatch ...
 

From June today:

...I'm not entirely sure what this means.