Tip with .2 seconds waved off

[Camron Rust]

It is almost as if they decided that a player couldn't "score" with 0.3 or less instead of couldn't catch and shoot. Or decided that it would have to be a tip at the basket only.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is almost as if they decided that a player couldn't "score" with 0.3 or less instead of couldn't catch and shoot. Or decided that it would have to be a tip at the basket only.

Speculating, but if they had previously decided that a player could not score and/or not to count any tip way from the basket, maybe they were mostly looking only for fouls in the last 0.2 seconds? No fouls? Game over?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Speculating, but if they had previously decided that a player could not score and/or not to count any tip way from the basket, maybe they were mostly looking only for fouls in the last 0.2 seconds? No fouls? Game over?

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

I think they were under the mistaken notion, perhaps solidified in a timeout prior to the play, that if it was a tap it had to be a one-handed tap, that a two-handed tap would not count. That seemed to be the demonstrative signal the official several times gave when communicating to the table after the ruling. For all three to come out so immediately and unanimously canceling the score, they must have all been on the exact same page, for sure. Though it may have been in the wrong chapter.
Speculating? Yes. Just my guess.

[Freddy]

Regular Forum contributor Rich is up kinda in that area. Rich, any inside info you can get from anybody in direct contact with the crew? Not in order to be critical, only analytical. I'd really like to know what they all based their mutual ruling on. As an opportunity for learning and teaching, not for purposes of piling on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

Maybe they thought that it was a “controlled tap.” 😁

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Maybe they thought that it was a “controlled tap.”

All three of them at the same exact time?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... previously decided that a player could not score ...

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Speculating? Yes. But why else would all 3 come out strong and instantly in canceling the shot if they had not previously agreed it couldn't count.

I speculated that they did exactly as you said (previously agreed it couldn't count) and were possibly only looking for fouls.