Alabama vs. LSU women - reviewable call?

[ronny mulkey]

Bass,

Don't know much about pixels, black shoes, etc. but I think that I see your problem. The officials didn't have conflicting views of the play based on the monitor. Their conflict was based a live human eyes look at the play from different angles.

After viewing the monitor, I think that they finally came away with the same decision. That decision was a 2 so how could that be fair to LSU to call it a 3? As good as a shot as it was, it was also good defense to make the Bama player "step to the side" as she stated.

Mulk

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by aurabass
Dan-ref wrote:

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.

Frankly, it's not clear to me if the 2 officials agreed or disagreed. If they disagreed at the point of the shot SOP is for the guy who saw the foot on the line to hit the whistle & straighten it out immediately. Which he did not do.

What exactly don't you comprehend about that?

What part of "the monitor gave conclusive proof" are you having trouble with again?

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?

What makes you think that we're all so dumb (or maybe you're so smart?) that we don't understand this concept already? Believe it or not, many of us, even the very stupidest among us (ahem JR cough cough), understands the importance of getting the best possible angle to make the best possible calls. Both in real time and with respect to what the monitor tells them. My only disagreement with what you said is that since the human visual system is what we work with it is not worth even contemplating resolutions of a NTSC video pixel or at the scale of a micrometer.

Sorry, nothing new here, but thanks for your advice.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by aurabass
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.

Perhaps tru while the player is standing still. But, as the player jumps, the heel comes up first and the toe goes down -- placing substantially all of the toe of the shoe on the court.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by aurabass
At 59 I do appreciate being called a goofball fangirl or fanboy.

Lah me, 59 years old and you're still the queen of the fangirls. You go, girl! Congratulations.

So........

The main thing that I'm getting here is that the stoopid officials don't know how to read a monitor. Maybe you could develop a training program for all NCAA officials on the lost art of monitor reading, as performed by experts. You could be the Dr. Ruth of monitor reading for us dumb officials. Hey, maybe you could even get that put on the curricula of dear ol' UT. Make it an accredited course. Get all of your football players away from the Underwater Polevaulting courses and get 'em majoring in Monitor Reading instead.

Btw, your fanboy website is a hoot too.

[womens_hoops]

well, for my part, I just want to say thanks to the folks here for spending the last couple days helping me to understand this situation. Sorry this thread degenerated into a flame war (welcome to the world of women's basketball!), but I appreciate the discussion. As always, it was a good learning experience for a non-ref fan like me.

[aurabass]

bob jenkins wrote:

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.

WOW that is revealing. Is this "general rule of thumb" published somewhere?

A player is trying a three point attempt close to the 3 point line and it is doubtful that her foot is "touching" the line so you penalize her effort?

From a fan's perspective.
Shots from the three point line score more because they are more difficult. An inch or a millimeter on or above the line makes no significant difference in that difficulty. Three points are awarded if a player jumps from behind the line and shoots while inside the line. The general rule of thumb should be to score the three if it is in doubt. It is no less difficult than the three scored while airborne. The close call should go to the shooter since 30% is excellent for a 3 point shooting percentage and chances are 2 to 1 against making the shot to begin with.

I wonder do you use the same "general rule of thumb" on out of bounds calls? When in doubt do you call the player out?
When in doubt do you call the foul?
When in doubt do you call traveling?

When in doubt you should allow the play to continue as intended by the players. If a player intends a three point shot and you think maybe her foot touched the line you should call the three unless you are sure it's a two. She earned it and you are taking it away on your doubt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by aurabass
bob jenkins wrote:

WOW that is revealing. Is this "general rule of thumb" published somewhere?

Yes.

From a fan's perspective.

(snip)

Feel free to write the rules committee with any suggested changes.

I wonder do you use the same "general rule of thumb" on out of bounds calls? When in doubt do you call the player out?
When in doubt do you call the foul?
When in doubt do you call traveling?

No. No. No.

On the first one, note that "behind the three point line" is the same as OOB -- that is, the player is in bounds (in the two-point area) until the official is convinced that s/he is out of bounds (in the three point area)

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by aurabass
When in doubt you should allow the play to continue as intended by the players.

That's nice.

Which players do you mean?

The players on offense, or the players on defense?

[rockyroad]

Wow...this aurabass is really on to something here. Maybe we should carry this logic over into other sports also...example: NFL running back hit and dropped right at the goal line - but come on now, he's awful close to being in there, and it's harder to get in the endzone than to not get in, and we all know his intent was to get in, so we should just go ahead and call it a touchdown, right??

Or maybe in an MLB game, when Barry Bonds gets up there and hits a long shot that hits the top of the wall and bounces back onto the field - I mean we all know what he intended, and it barely hit the wall - give him the roundtripper!

Or I know, when Tiger Woods or Phil Mikelson or VJ Singh choke on that short putt and it lips out, come on now - we all know they intended for it to go in, let's just give it to them...

Yeah, this aurabass could completely revolutionalize sports as we know it today...damn the rules and procedures, let's just go with intent!

[aurabass]

I'm certainly not trying to compete in a "flame war" here.

My question and desire is to know how cameras are used to make these calls. In that effort I have taken the time to make the following graphic located here: http://ladyvols.blogspot.com/2005/03...hing-line.html
showing three different angles of a shoe and a line.

My apologies to anyone I have offended.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Wow...this aurabass is really on to something here. Maybe we should carry this logic over into other sports also...example: NFL running back hit and dropped right at the goal line - but come on now, he's awful close to being in there, and it's harder to get in the endzone than to not get in, and we all know his intent was to get in, so we should just go ahead and call it a touchdown, right??

Or maybe in an MLB game, when Barry Bonds gets up there and hits a long shot that hits the top of the wall and bounces back onto the field - I mean we all know what he intended, and it barely hit the wall - give him the roundtripper!

Or I know, when Tiger Woods or Phil Mikelson or VJ Singh choke on that short putt and it lips out, come on now - we all know they intended for it to go in, let's just give it to them...

Yeah, this aurabass could completely revolutionalize sports as we know it today...damn the rules and procedures, let's just go with intent!

And just think how easy aurabass's idea will make it for us at home....

Her: "You forgot my birthday again."
Him: "It's OK, I meant to remember it."

Her: "I thought you were going to clean out the garage today? What happened?"
Him: "I watched the game instead, but it's OK. I really meant to do it."

Her: "Hey!!! You didn't lift the seat AGAIN!!!!"
Him: "Yeah, but I meant to."

[aurabass]

Rocky Road wrote:

Wow...this aurabass is really on to something here. Maybe we should carry this logic over into other sports also...example: NFL running back hit and dropped right at the goal line - but come on now, he's awful close to being in there, and it's harder to get in the endzone than to not get in, and we all know his intent was to get in, so we should just go ahead and call it a touchdown, right??

Or maybe in an MLB game, when Barry Bonds gets up there and hits a long shot that hits the top of the wall and bounces back onto the field - I mean we all know what he intended, and it barely hit the wall - give him the roundtripper!

Or I know, when Tiger Woods or Phil Mikelson or VJ Singh choke on that short putt and it lips out, come on now - we all know they intended for it to go in, let's just give it to them...

Pretty silly Rocky Road.

None of your examples are close to the situation that is described.

Gamble's shot went in from the three point line.
Was her foot "touching" the line or not is the question
not did the shot rim the basket and fall out.

The NFL running back is either in or out
Barry Bonds ball bounced back in to the field
and Tiger's put lipped out.

What is being debated here is whether a foot was "touching" a line.
one ref said no
the other said yes
The camera angle decided.

Please try to keep up and offer examples that at least have some similarity to the situation. When you offer these totally out of context examples your satire simply doesn't work.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by aurabass
I'm certainly not trying to compete in a "flame war" here.

My question and desire is to know how cameras are used to make these calls. In that effort I have taken the time to make the following graphic located here: http://ladyvols.blogspot.com/2005/03...hing-line.html
showing three different angles of a shoe and a line.

My apologies to anyone I have offended.

This link defines precisely how the monitor is to be used:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Rule 2.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally posted by aurabass
bob jenkins wrote:

WOW that is revealing. Is this "general rule of thumb" published somewhere?

A player is trying a three point attempt close to the 3 point line and it is doubtful that her foot is "touching" the line so you penalize her effort?

From a fan's perspective.
Shots from the three point line score more because they are more difficult. An inch or a millimeter on or above the line makes no significant difference in that difficulty. Three points are awarded if a player jumps from behind the line and shoots while inside the line. The general rule of thumb should be to score the three if it is in doubt. It is no less difficult than the three scored while airborne. The close call should go to the shooter since 30% is excellent for a 3 point shooting percentage and chances are 2 to 1 against making the shot to begin with.

I wonder do you use the same "general rule of thumb" on out of bounds calls? When in doubt do you call the player out?
When in doubt do you call the foul?
When in doubt do you call traveling?

When in doubt you should allow the play to continue as intended by the players. If a player intends a three point shot and you think maybe her foot touched the line you should call the three unless you are sure it's a two. She earned it and you are taking it away on your doubt.

ROTFLMAO...

This takes the cake. Thanks for the chuckle, because I know you can't be serious with this logic.

Straight from the case book 2.10.1 Situation G "A1 jumps and releases a try for goal apparently from behind the three-point line. The try is successful. The covering official does not indicate a three-point try and does not signal three points after the goal. The team A head coach rushes to the table and requests a 60 sceond time out to discuss a correctable error. It is determined neither official clearly observed a!'s location before he/she jumped to try.

Ruling: No change can be made and two points are properly scored. The 60 second time out remains charged to Team A.

There you have it... it is not a "rule of thumb" to award two when the officials are unsure but it is procedure as outlined by the rule book. Therefore your "intent theory", while nice has no bearing and your attack about applying the same "rule of thumb" to other totally unrelated basketball plays is laughable. Stick with the play in question and the actual rules and procedures that apply.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

ROTFLMAO...

This takes the cake. Thanks for the chuckle, because I know you can't be serious with this logic.

Straight from the case book 2.10.1 Situation G "A1 jumps and releases a try for goal apparently from behind the three-point line. The try is successful. The covering official does not indicate a three-point try and does not signal three points after the goal. The team A head coach rushes to the table and requests a 60 sceond time out to discuss a correctable error. It is determined neither official clearly observed A1's location before he/she jumped to try.

Ruling: No change can be made and two points are properly scored. The 60 second time out remains charged to Team A.

There you have it... it is not a "rule of thumb" to award two when the officials are unsure but it is procedure as outlined by the rule book. Therefore your "intent theory", while nice has no bearing and your attack about applying the same "rule of thumb" to other totally unrelated basketball plays is laughable. Stick with the play in question and the actual rules and procedures that apply.