|
Tue Mar 08, 2005, 06:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If we think that the shooter's foot touched the line, well, you gotta give her the three anyway. She earned it. She's a nice person and she probably means well.If you take it away because you doubted that it really was a 3, well then you're nothing but a mean old ref. Um, Aurabell, what if the shooter isn't a Lady Vol? You still gonna give her that 3 when her foot's on the line? Yeah, right. I think we have a new leader for "Dumbest post made this year by a fangirl".  PS-you were right about Rocky though. Gotta hand you that much. |
|
Tue Mar 08, 2005, 09:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
On another note, in the UConn game tonight, one ref signals a 3, the other doesn't mirror, and immediately after it goes in they blow it dead, go to the monitor, and rule it a 2. And this was with over 7 minutes left. This crew wasn't about to get reprimanded and have to go call some other conference's final!
__________________
If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague. |
|
Tue Mar 08, 2005, 10:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Aurabass,
I saw the end of the game live, and I immediately thought two mistakes had been made. I've been proved right on one of those thoughts (mistake to administer a do-over), and your photos and analysis as a video-tech type have me belieiving that I was right on the other point, also, that the toe was not indeed touching the line. You've gotten roasted on the last couple of pages for attempting to come up with a novel "principle," which would be a de facto rule if applied. I simply don't think that what you proposed is practicable. Where I will defend you, however, is that nobody here seems (my apologies if I have missed something) to have countered your original objection, which I read to be the certainty that was expresseed by the crew chief after having looked at the replay. Your physical evidence has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that camera angles can distort our sense of reality. You very reasonably argue that this notion should be considered when officials are examining replays. I agree with you in theory that it is wise that we understand the capacity of video to distort what actually occurred on the floor. The problem is what we do when we attempt to apply our new knowledge. The rules state that if the crew is unsure, we must rule two points. Even if Enterline knew what you know, he couldn't be sure. The data you have provided on video/pixels/etc. can only add doubt where there might not have been any; it can never remove all doubt. Given the rules and the looks available to the crew, they were professionally bound to rule the play a two-point basket. I feel your frustration with what you reasonably view as an unjust result. Unfortunately, there is no new rule that the available knowledge base affords us that would allow us to get this play right in the future. The only possibility, one we all hope for, is the perfect camera angle. To your credit, you have given us help in assessing which camera angles are optimal; unfortunately you haven't given us any help in being able to time-travel to make such angles available on replay. My sense is that if Enterline had simply stated that the crew was unsure after looking at replays, and thus had no choice but to rule two points, you could have accepted the result more peacefully, and maybe peaceably. FWIW, I appreciate your contributions to this thread, even if I did find some much more fruitful than others. I think that given the contribution that you made earlier in the thread, you probably deserved more civil treatment by some of the regular posters here, but then again my assessments of different situations are often at odds with those that took you to task, so who knows. At the risk of repeating others' mistakes, I will humbly offer you a rule of thumb you might use in the consideration of future posts here: use great care in proposing new rules, rules of thumb, etc. Rules do get changed, and when that happens, the result is sometimes--but not always--an improvement; but these instances are relatively few and far between, and normally involve many years of thought and at least a season or two of experimentation (at least at the college level). So, I'm not telling you that you don't have any good ideas about how to make the game better, just to consider them very carefully before posting in a referees' forum. Take care, and know that we are much more concerned than any fan could ever be about getting plays correct. John |
|
Tue Mar 08, 2005, 11:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
John,
I thank you so much for your considered and accurate reply to my various posts. I think I learned a great deal here today and I appreciate your kind response. FYI I have added screen shots from the camera angle used to make the "conclusive" decision to my group of digital photos http://ladyvols.blogspot.com/2005/03...hing-line.html I found that it was replayed at half-time on my DVR recording of the UT vs Auburn game. On my 36" Sony Wega Hi Def monitor I can see the miniscule space between the toe and the line even though that angle is from in front of the shoe. If you watched the UCONN Rutgers game tonight an identical situation arose. The officials gathered around a tiny monitor on the scorers table while I watched what they were seeing on a 36" High Definition Monitor very closely. Once again I could see the space between the toe and the line but they could not. They called it a 2 when it was a 3. If it's that close I still say give it to the shooter. But I do understand your point of view. Thank you again for taking the time to reply. Barry |
|
Wed Mar 09, 2005, 08:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
JR writes:
Quote:
I would prefer, as I am sure you would, that games be shot in High Definition and that you have a large High Definition monitor to see clearly the relationship of the foot to the line. It's the "when in doubt call it out" rule of thumb that I question. Secondly - as I said before - as a Lady Vol fan I would have preferred a no-call and overtime in the Baylor UT game where UT benefited from a call with .2 seconds left on the clock. I'm a fan of fairnes first and the Lady Vols second. Let the players decide the outcome when it's a choice between the playes and the officials. The Lady Vols have secured their place at the Summitt of the WCBB world. We don't need officials to help us out. Third is that "Aurabell" comment a dig at Sally Bell? It's cute but Sally might take offense. As far as "dumbest post of the year" goes I will accept that with some pride coming from you. Maybe this discussion had some positive impact and maybe it didn't. I learned quite a bit about how some officials think. Thank you for your responses. If it were up to me I would equip you with the best monitors and cameras available so your decisions could be made with the best views and resolution possible. Until then I hope that you pay close attention to shadows and bleed (adjacent pixels picking up color and shadow)in the monitors you use and that you take that into consideration in your determination. Those millimeters don't make any difference in the difficulty of the 3 point shot. all the best to all of you - you do a terrifically difficult job and I appreciate it. Peace [Edited by aurabass on Mar 9th, 2005 at 08:09 AM] |
|
Wed Mar 09, 2005, 08:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have already pointed out to you that it is not a "rule of thumb" but an actual rule. If the officials are unsure the shot must be ruled a 2. That being said your pixel, low resolution monitor theory still holds no water. If the video that they review shows that the shooters foot is on the line (even though according to your research it may not be) then her foot is on the line. There is no way to tell based on that resolution that her foot may be milimeters behind it (read: doubt). Therefore, there is still uncertainty... and what does the RULE tell us to do when there is uncertainty...that's right, its a two. The only thing the monitor can do is show us definitively if the shooter was behind the line. If that is the case then award the three. I think you would agree that if the monitor shows the shooter behind the line then he/she WAS actually behind the line... pixels and low resolution be damned and we can award the three because we are now CERTAIN. |
|
Wed Mar 09, 2005, 09:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you for your reply Bball Junkie
I am clearly advocating a rule change when I suggest that the rule should be when in doubt count the three. I know that is not your decision and that you must abide by the rule as it now exists. Since changing the rule is difficult I suggest that officials should be provided with large monitors that are HIGH DEFINITION where possible. There is a great review of how HIGH DEFINITION improves resolution here: http://www.hdtvinfoport.com/high-def...elevision.html HD basically means you have 1920 x 1080 lines of resolution vs 720 x 486 with NTSC (current low def resolution) This means there are 6 times the pixels in HD. This results in sharper clearer images on the monitor. Sharper and clearer images make it easier to see the relationship of the shoe to the line. The bleed (distortion of color and shadow in adjacent pixels) is reduced and you can see clearly if there is space between the shoe and the line. Even without the High Definition the larger monitor would improve your chance of eliminating doubt. Thanks again for the reply. |
|
Wed Mar 09, 2005, 10:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Mar 09, 2005, 12:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]
I am clearly advocating a rule change when I suggest that the rule should be when in doubt count the three. [QUOTE] I can't agree with this suggestion. When we signal a 3, we are telling everyone we saw the foot behind the line. Yes, we might make a mistake from time to time. If we start signaling a 3, because it's close and we are not sure, well... I guess you need to be in our shoes. I believe there will be a lot more mistakes. [QUOTE] Since changing the rule is difficult I suggest that officials should be provided with large monitors that are HIGH DEFINITION where possible. [QUOTE] While I would like to have all the tools necessary to get every play correct, I think there is a limit. We have to deal with all kinds of unfair situations in life, basketball is no different. Game mgmt. has to balance what they feel is necessary to be on the tables next to the court. Do they want a large monitor on the table? Do the players want to run into a large monitor while chasing a ball?
__________________
foulbuster |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
