NCAA Tournament (Elite 8 Games) Video Requests - Saturday and Sunday

[Nevadaref]

Can't believe that they aren't using the monitor to check the clock following UNC's last basket. Rulewise there is a huge difference between 0.3 and 0.4 remaining.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can't believe that they aren't using the monitor to check the clock following UNC's last basket. Rulewise there is a huge difference between 0.3 and 0.4 remaining.

I agree. The ball was clear of the net with 0.5 even. That is a huge error that cost UK the chance at a shot.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree. The ball was clear of the net with 0.5 even. That is a huge error that cost UK the chance at a shot.

Concur. I kept waiting for them to announce a correction but it never happened. Initially I thought Higgins was blowing it dead to correct the clock, the official covering the shot had clearly signaled it was a 2 and was not the official to initiate a review of that.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Concur. I kept waiting for them to announce a correction but it never happened. Initially I thought Higgins was blowing it dead to correct the clock, the official covering the shot had clearly signaled it was a 2 and was not the official to initiate a review of that.

Yes, yes, yes!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can't believe that they aren't using the monitor to check the clock following UNC's last basket. Rulewise there is a huge difference between 0.3 and 0.4 remaining.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree. The ball was clear of the net with 0.5 even. That is a huge error that cost UK the chance at a shot.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Concur. I kept waiting for them to announce a correction but it never happened. Initially I thought Higgins was blowing it dead to correct the clock, the official covering the shot had clearly signaled it was a 2 and was not the official to initiate a review of that.

I am going to disagree with all of you. For one the rule states that the goal is not scored until the ball remains in or passes through the basket. Well the ball does not really go through the basket until 0.3.

There is also no evidence they did not look at this. They have an alternate as well and if there was an issue he can to my knowledge let the crew now. There appeared to be a timeout or some stoppage for some time so I am sure they looked at this. But they did appear to get it right based on the pure rule and we know we must prove that we know the exact rule and apply it to the letter. I am not convinced that 0.4 would have been accurate considering that the ball appears to still be in the net. In other words they would be splitting hairs and IMO making a judgment that would be tight at best. They would get killed if they reviewed this later and Kentucky had made a big basket later. That is an easy decision sitting here at a computer screen or on a couch to make such a decision IMO. But hey, what do I know, just giving an opinion that means nothing in the end right?

Peace

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to disagree with all of you. For one the rule states that the goal is not scored until the ball remains in or passes through the basket. Well the ball does not really go through the basket until 0.3.

There is also no evidence they did not look at this. They have an alternate as well and if there was an issue he can to my knowledge let the crew now. There appeared to be a timeout or some stoppage for some time so I am sure they looked at this. But they did appear to get it right based on the pure rule and we know we must prove that we know the exact rule and apply it to the letter. I am not convinced that 0.4 would have been accurate considering that the ball appears to still be in the net. In other words they would be splitting hairs and IMO making a judgment that would be tight at best. They would get killed if they reviewed this later and Kentucky had made a big basket later. That is an easy decision sitting here at a computer screen or on a couch to make such a decision IMO. But hey, what do I know, just giving an opinion that means nothing in the end right?

Peace

I agree with JRut on this 100%.

Per the 2016-17 NCAA Mens Basketball Rulebook, Pg. 103

Rule 11 Section 3. Instant Replay—Mandatory Use
Art. 1. Officials shall use such available equipment in the following
situations:
a. When there is a reading of zeroes on the game clock at the end of any
period, after making a call on the playing court, and when necessary to
determine the outcome of the game in the following situations:
1. Determine whether a try for field goal entering the basket was
released before the reading of zeroes on the game clock. When it
is determined that the try for goal was successful, the official is
permitted to put the exact time back on the game clock as to when
the ball passed through the net.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to disagree with all of you. For one the rule states that the goal is not scored until the ball remains in or passes through the basket. Well the ball does not really go through the basket until 0.3.

There is also no evidence they did not look at this. They have an alternate as well and if there was an issue he can to my knowledge let the crew now. There appeared to be a timeout or some stoppage for some time so I am sure they looked at this. But they did appear to get it right based on the pure rule and we know we must prove that we know the exact rule and apply it to the letter. I am not convinced that 0.4 would have been accurate considering that the ball appears to still be in the net. In other words they would be splitting hairs and IMO making a judgment that would be tight at best. They would get killed if they reviewed this later and Kentucky had made a big basket later. That is an easy decision sitting here at a computer screen or on a couch to make such a decision IMO. But hey, what do I know, just giving an opinion that means nothing in the end right?

Peace

I agree with Jrut. I froze/play/froze play the video and I thought that the ball was touching the net with .6, .5, and .4 seconds. When the ball was no longer in contact with the net, it read .3. I am actually surprised at how accurately they stopped the clock at .3. Probably 100 other clock operators would have stopped it at .2 or less.

Originally Posted by bucky

I am actually surprised at how accurately they stopped the clock at .3. Probably 100 other clock operators would have stopped it at .2 or less.

I think the clock guy got lucky.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

I agree with Jrut. I froze/play/froze play the video and I thought that the ball was touching the net with .6, .5, and .4 seconds. When the ball was no longer in contact with the net, it read .3. I am actually surprised at how accurately they stopped the clock at .3. Probably 100 other clock operators would have stopped it at .2 or less.

While it was touching the bottom of the net, it was outside of it with the net laying on top of it. That is all that is required. It was entirely through by 0.5.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While it was touching the bottom of the net, it was outside of it with the net laying on top of it. That is all that is required. It was entirely through by 0.5.

I did not see anything that suggests the ball was completely through at .5. Maybe .4 at best, but the video is inconclusive. I think they got it right based on the angles we have and have shown. I think that is a stretch and would take detailed examining to determine either way. I am good with what they did.

Peace