Alabama vs. LSU women - reviewable call?

[womens_hoops]

Yeah, I'm not a rules expert, but I think the applicable rule says that there are only a few explicit situations when you can add time back to the clock. This wasn't one of them, so he was wrong. I'm just guessing that no one ever contemplated this situation before, that you probably should be able to put time back on the clock, but the current rules don't allow for it. Maybe they should... but they don't.

As for the TV angles -- they did show us three.

One was too far away, and too low. The second should have been the best -- it was from midcourt high -- but unfortunately, there was another player completely in the way.

The third angle was the best, but still not very good. You could see the foot and the line. It looked like the toe was right up to it, and you could not see any light floor space between the two. On the other hand, you couldn't really see whether that toe was actually on the line -- in part because it was from a fairly low camera angle (and it was on Fox, which seems to have crappier cameras and angles than ESPN, CBS.)

I believe that's what they were talking about, but I'm not totally sure. It is possible that they had some additional view that was never shown on TV.

[Nevadaref]

Time can NEVER be put back on the clock when correcting an error, EVER. Don't do it, don't let someone else do it.

[aurabass]

Does anyone know of a picture online of the famous Alabama toe on the line?

According to reports 2 of 3 camera angles were "inconclusive" while a third showed the toe on the line in the now famous Alabama 3 point shot controversy.

If I recall correctly the Alabama players were wearing black shoes - the 3 point line on the BI-LO court was also black.

Looking at this graphic:
http://mb7.scout.com/fgridscapefrm6....ID=18700.topic
the toe of the shoe appears to be touching the line from this angle but it is not. Two black objects together in a picture can appear to touch when a pixel width is present. It is the nature of video and computer screens.

I tried a little test at home wearing my black 'tennis' shoes.

I placed my foot against a black line
When I leaned slightly back the shoe appeared to be touching the line - when I leaned forward it did not.

The typical basketball shoe curves upward at the toe. Theoretically the toe of the shoe could be slightly over the line without the sole of the shoe touching the line.

Two questions for those who may know the rule.
1) Does the rule say "touching the line" or "over the line"
2) If a player jumps into a shot from behind the line but is above the line when the ball is released, is it a 3 or a 2?

This was a 3 point shot attempt to tie an important basketball game with 5 seconds left. The player definitely thought she was shooting a 3. IF it wasn't a 3 it was by a millimeter less - by any account an insignificant difference of difficulty. She hit the shot and the game appeared to everyone in the arena to be tied except one of three officials. TJ definitely drove to the basket and attempted a shot that failed despite her assertion that she thought it was a 2 point shot.

There was a very simple solution: Let the players decide in overtime the outcome of the game.

These "officials" are ridiculous to decide the outcome of the game based on the flimsy evidence of a camera angle behind the player and the line. (The cameras were at the center of the court) I can make any foot appear to be touching a line from behind the foot and the line but that is not conclusive. A camera would have to be at floor level to the side and front of the shoe to see if the upward curved toe is actually touching the line. Given the tiny monitor available for official viewing it would be impossible to zoom in on the shoe and the line to make an absolutely accurate decision.

Don't get me wrong - I am so glad LSU won and that UT beat them. But I think LSU would have beaten Alabama in overtime just like UT would have beaten Baylor last year. These officials are not expert in video angles or pixel accuracy. Somebody needs to adjust the rules to stop this kind of absurdity from reoccurring

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by aurabass
Does anyone know of a picture online of the famous Alabama toe on the line?

According to reports 2 of 3 camera angles were "inconclusive" while a third showed the toe on the line in the now famous Alabama 3 point shot controversy.

If I recall correctly the Alabama players were wearing black shoes - the 3 point line on the BI-LO court was also black.

Looking at this graphic:
http://mb7.scout.com/fgridscapefrm6....ID=18700.topic
the toe of the shoe appears to be touching the line from this angle but it is not. Two black objects together in a picture can appear to touch when a pixel width is present. It is the nature of video and computer screens.

I tried a little test at home wearing my black 'tennis' shoes.

I placed my foot against a black line
When I leaned slightly back the shoe appeared to be touching the line - when I leaned forward it did not.

The typical basketball shoe curves upward at the toe. Theoretically the toe of the shoe could be slightly over the line without the sole of the shoe touching the line.

Two questions for those who may know the rule.
1) Does the rule say "touching the line" or "over the line"
2) If a player jumps into a shot from behind the line but is above the line when the ball is released, is it a 3 or a 2?

This was a 3 point shot attempt to tie an important basketball game with 5 seconds left. The player definitely thought she was shooting a 3. IF it wasn't a 3 it was by a millimeter less - by any account an insignificant difference of difficulty. She hit the shot and the game appeared to everyone in the arena to be tied except one of three officials. TJ definitely drove to the basket and attempted a shot that failed despite her assertion that she thought it was a 2 point shot.

There was a very simple solution: Let the players decide in overtime the outcome of the game.

These "officials" are ridiculous to decide the outcome of the game based on the flimsy evidence of a camera angle behind the player and the line. (The cameras were at the center of the court) I can make any foot appear to be touching a line from behind the foot and the line but that is not conclusive. A camera would have to be at floor level to the side and front of the shoe to see if the upward curved toe is actually touching the line. Given the tiny monitor available for official viewing it would be impossible to zoom in on the shoe and the line to make an absolutely accurate decision.

Don't get me wrong - I am so glad LSU won and that UT beat them. But I think LSU would have beaten Alabama in overtime just like UT would have beaten Baylor last year. These officials are not expert in video angles or pixel accuracy. Somebody needs to adjust the rules to stop this kind of absurdity from reoccurring

How can you tell March is here?

All the goofball fanboys and fangirls come out of hibernation. We got us a UT fan here that's still whining about the Baylor game last year where the mean ol' officials screwed her team. Yup, it's a conspiracy, I tell ya.

Go infest some other site. This one is for officials.

PS- I heard a rumor that the officials are gonna screw UT again this year too.Just because of you!

Lah me.

[ronny mulkey]

Bass,

That was a very tough call all the way around. Especially, when you consider that it is still being questioned after 3 camera angles.

Would you go to O.T. and let the players decide because one official had a 3? Or, would say ballgame because one official had a 2? Is it "if its that close, it has to be a 3". Or, is it "if its that close, it has to be a 2"?

What is your proposal? Do away with the cameras? Let the camera experts decide the game?

Mulk

[tmp44]

Can we all agree to just disagree on the 2/3 point shot? The officials went to the monitor, saw what they thought was conclusive evidence that it was a 2, and awarded as such. But that's moot in the whole scheme of things here...the real question is why was the 5.1 put back on the clock? All of us have said on here that fair and equitable doesn't mean diddly squat if it doesn't follow a rule! So would someone please explain (because we haven't seen it yet), whether these three actually followed a proper rule or procedure in putting the 5.1 back up?

[womens_hoops]

yeah, that last question was answered in another thread. They were wrong to put the time back on the clock and replay the 5.1. They should have just corrected the score and ended the game. An unfair solution, you might say, but the correct one under the rules. The SEC issued a press release yesterday explaining the mistake, and saying that the three refs had been reprimanded.

I think this was a very tough situation for the refs all around.

It was a very close shot, hard to tell. They should have stopped play then to check, but LSU inbounded so fast, there was nothing they could do. They correctly went to the monitor at the next dead ball, and made the best decision they could. They were wrong to replay the time, but they probably did what they thought was fair and right in a situation they had never faced before.

Sometimes crazy things happen.

[aurabass]

Jurassic Referee says:

All the goofball fanboys and fangirls come out of hibernation. We got us a UT fan here that's still whining about the Baylor game last year where the mean ol' officials screwed her team. Yup, it's a conspiracy, I tell ya.

I certainly hope your judgment is better on the court JR. UT did not get screwed in the Baylor game. UT benefitted from the call. And I certainly am not whining about it. At 59 I do appreciate being called a goofball fangirl or fanboy.

I am not an official but I work with video and digital images and I do know where the cameras were located in the arena.

My hope is that the officials who read this thread will be aware of the inaccuracy of pictures that come from certain angles.

My questions involved the rule and I ask again how the three point line rule is stated:
Is it "touching the line" or "over the line"
and
Does a three point 'jump shot' where the feet leave the court behind the line but the shot is released above the line count as a three or a two?

I hope you pay better attention to the calls and less time being defensive about your position than you did in this totally off the wall reply to my post.

[Adam]

Originally posted by aurabass
My questions involved the rule and I ask again how the three point line rule is stated:
Is it "touching the line" or "over the line"
and
Does a three point 'jump shot' where the feet leave the court behind the line but the shot is released above the line count as a three or a two?

Touching the line is a two. An airborne player's position is determined by his point of takeoff. If he jumped from behind the line, it's a three.

There are only two rules that reference a boundary "plane" rather than a line. Throwins and freethrows.

[aurabass]

ronny mulkey writes:

Bass,

That was a very tough call all the way around. Especially, when you consider that it is still being questioned after 3 camera angles.

Would you go to O.T. and let the players decide because one official had a 3? Or, would say ballgame because one official had a 2? Is it "if its that close, it has to be a 3". Or, is it "if its that close, it has to be a 2"?

What is your proposal? Do away with the cameras? Let the camera experts decide the game?

As to your first question: I would err on the side of the tie given that overtime would be the fairest solution. The player was definitely trying to shoot a three to tie. She made a very difficult shot. If there is a dispute err on the side of fairness and let the overtime decide the issue.

As to my proposal I will ask a question:
Are you as officials schooled on camera angles and pixel resolution?
More specifically:
Have you been exposed to any video that shows how a black shoe can look like it is touching a black line from one angle and in reality not be touching the line?
And finally:
If the monitors and camera angles are not sufficient to show these miniscule differences between angles and micrometers of distance - please make a no call judgment and allow the overtime to decide the outcome.

The score in this case was posted at 60 to 60 and a point was taken away. Had the score been 61 to 60 following the shot the same proposal for fairness should apply. When in doubt let the players play it out.

Doubt existed. The camera angles really can't solve it. One official said three and another two. It's a tie. Play the overtime.

And finally - for Jurassic Ref: We "goofball fanboys and fangirls" support the game and the players and by extension the officials. The teams play the game for themselves and for the fans. I'm sorry you seem to find us such a nuisance. From a fan who had no dog in this hunt - we prefer that the players decide the outcome. There was a simple solution here. Play the overtime.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by aurabass
As to your first question: I would err on the side of the tie given that overtime would be the fairest solution. The player was definitely trying to shoot a three to tie. She made a very difficult shot. If there is a dispute err on the side of fairness and let the overtime decide the issue.

Great, but that's not what the rules say. There's no "when in doubt go to OT" rule.

Doubt existed. The camera angles really can't solve it. One official said three and another two. It's a tie. Play the overtime.

[/B][/QUOTE]

The conference (apparently) disagrees -- they found an angle that shows the foot on the line. Even if they didn't, the general rule-of-thumb / benefit of the doubt is that it's a 2-point shot unless proven to be a 3-point shot.

[aurabass]

Snagwells writes:

Touching the line is a two. An airborne player's position is determined by his point of takeoff. If he jumped from behind the line, it's a three.

Thank you so much Snagwells.

If "touching" is the word then I submit your decision is even more difficult. Many if not most baskeball shoes curve upward at the toe. That being the case it is possible for the toe of a shoe to be over the line while the sole is not "touching" the line.

I know these are split second calls made in nanoseconds and that there is probably no earthly way enough cameras and angles could be supplied to verify the calls.

It might be easier if the NCAA would dictate that all shoes must be white and all lines black and then you could see the shoe and the line in stark contrast and the rule could be changed to "over or on top of" the line as opposed to "touching" so you could clearly see the white shoe over the black line.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by aurabass

As to my proposal I will ask a question:
Are you as officials schooled on camera angles and pixel resolution?
More specifically:
Have you been exposed to any video that shows how a black shoe can look like it is touching a black line from one angle and in reality not be touching the line?
And finally:
If the monitors and camera angles are not sufficient to show these miniscule differences between angles and micrometers of distance - please make a no call judgment and allow the overtime to decide the outcome.

This is silly.

The game is officiated by humans and as such our judgements are limited to the precision of human scale, not machine scale. To discuss micrometers & pixel resolution makes no sense on any level in this discussion, we make judgements using our senses and our experience.

Even sillier is the notion that because we are not precise down to a micrometer we should be expected to not insert ourselves into the game. If we see the player on the line it's a 2, regardless of the score or point in the game. If the replay shows conclusively the shooter was touching the line then it's a 2. Our job is not to avoid game deciding judgements. Our job is to make game deciding calls/no calls properly.

[bigzilla]

I have a problem with any explanation being that the scorer or timekeeper was at fault, or that LSU inbounded before the refs could seek a review. Since no ref was blowing a whistle, none of these were going to happen. The proper thing would have been to immediately blow it dead and seek review. If any time ran off after the basket but before the clock was stopped, put that time back on. This is done all the time when a team calls timeout after a basket in the waning seconds. While this would have allowed both teams some advantage, i.e., being able to set up a press or pressbreaker while the review was on going, it would have been a much better result than the way it was handled (not according to the rules) or if they had handled it properly after the time ran out (changing the score, but not putting time back on).

Since the mechanics require the C and T to mirror the call on a made three, one of them should have known immediately that they had a disagreement on whether it was a three, unless it was the L who thought the toe was on the line, which seems unlikely.

[aurabass]

Dan-ref wrote:

This is silly.

The game is officiated by humans and as such our judgements are limited to the precision of human scale, not machine scale. To discuss micrometers & pixel resolution makes no sense on any level in this discussion, we make judgements using our senses and our experience.

Even sillier is the notion that because we are not precise down to a micrometer we should be expected to not insert ourselves into the game. If we see the player on the line it's a 2, regardless of the score or point in the game. If the replay shows conclusively the shooter was touching the line then it's a 2. Our job is not to avoid game deciding judgements. Our job is to make game deciding calls/no calls properly.

How interesting!
It is silly to train officials on the distortion angle and resolutions make on video monitors since officials use video monitors to make calls.

In this case one official made the judgment that it was a three - another made a judgment that it was a two. The angle and resolution of a video monitor were used to make the decision.

What exactly don't you comprehend about that?

Now if you know the camera angle behind the foot and the line can make the foot appear to be touching the line when it isn't do you think it is silly to take that into consideration?