Don't know if anyone saw the end of the LSU-Alabama women's game in the SEC Tournament today. If not...

LSU led, 60-57, with less than 15 seconds to play. Alabama brought the ball into the frontcourt, found the open shooter, and she knocked down what was apparently a 3-pointer with :5.1 left (tie game, 60-60). LSU drives the length of the floor, misses a potential game-winning layup, time expires. Overtime, right?

But wait...the officials went to the table to review the apparent 3-point shot. Replays showed (not very clearly, but apparently enough for the officials) that the shooter's foot was on the line. Call changed to a 2-point basket, so the score is now LSU 60, Alabama 59.

They end up putting the :5.1 back on the clock, 'Bama fouls quickly, LSU misses both free throws but 'Bama can't get a shot off.

Officials said after the game that two angles were inconclusive, but the third showed the foot on the line. From the replay I saw (later in the day), I didn't see irrefutable evidence to overturn the call, although it was borderline.

I watched the whole thing from press row, but I couldn't see the shooter's feet so I don't know for sure and they didn't show the replay in the arena. Just wondering: was this handled properly by NCAA rules/replay procedures?

Wasn't it a game involving Alabama the last time something screwy like this happened?

Bigwes,

Glad you saw it, too. The views that we had on TV would not have resulted in a reverse call (if they had signaled a 3). Also, we couldn't tell what signal the officials gave at the time the ball went in. Did they signal a 2 or a 3?

Regardless, were the officials correct in replaying the 5.1 seconds? Why? Would they have replayed them if LSU had taken the ball down and scored after the disputed shot?

Interested in hearing from the college guys on this one.

Mulk

One official signaled a 3, another signaled a 2.

They put the time back on the clock???

Boy, I REALLY want to see a rule reference on that one.

Well this is interesting. I didn't see the game. The play is reviewable to check the foot on the line and to check the time. However, something doesn't add up. A.) if the clock is correct and the game is over, then they go to the monitor and correct the score, this is ok at this point. Score is 60-59 and we go to overtime. B.) (I am going to side if the officials) If the officials went to the monitor and corrected the score and CORRECTED a timing mistake, then they did everything correct.

You go to overtime at 60-59? Bet Alabama would love to hear that now.

Of course, they probably would have had to throw LSU's coach out of the game because she would have gone berserk.

Depends how you look at it. They start the OT with 1 point advantage. There are a lot of "what ifs" and at that level, most coaches, at least in the women's game understand.

Can someone give me a rules reference on that one?

Black,

Why O.T? There was no timing mistake. Clock stopped with 5.1 when the shot went through the net. LSU inbounded the ball and ran out the clock. Then, they went to the monitor. Verified the shot as a 2. Then went back to the endline and put the clock back to 5.1 and replayed.

Is that a women's rule? Why did they not go to the monitor at the 5.1 mark to begin with?

Where is Bob Jenkins when you need him?

Mulk

Out of town.

I didn't see the play, but as described I'm confused. Is it possible that one official was calling for the review before / as LSU was throwing the ball in and the timer didn't see it and so started the clock (or the clock on the screen wasn't the official clock, but was an ESPN clock)? If that was the case, there wasn't really a "do over", rather, the first play didn't happen.

Bob ,LSU's coach asked for the review after her PG came over and told her that one of the official's did not signal a 3. Do all officials on the college level in a game have to signal or "mirror" the 3 pt basket? The timer had already put 5:00 on the clock and Pd 5. If I were Rick Moody,I would have kept my team on the court waiting for the OT period to begin and refusing to leave the court. Could they have protested? I guess it's obvious that I'm an Alabama fan also.

I was watching the game, was about two inches from the screen trying to see the replay, but you just couldn't tell. I remain confused.

On TV, there was no indication that anyone on the crew called for review immediately when the ball went in. (In fact, it was only later, in the middle of the next game, that someone said that one official had called it a three and another had called it a two.)

Here are a couple newspaper articles describing it more:

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/...ulady001.shtml

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...503050324/1028

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/...alais001.shtml

I don't know if the video review thing falls under the "correctable errors" rule in the NCAA, but if it does, then they should have gone to the monitor before the first free throw. It seems that waiting that long isn't allowable, but then I don't know the NCAA rule. They did do the right thing by not playing the overtime. If they had waited until some point after the overtime started, then they would have had to continue.

The free throws were not shot until after the call was changed. The clock ran out, no official had signaled for a review, and everyone seemed in agreement it was headed to overtime.

Everyone in the place was flabbergasted when they changed the call, especially after Alabama coach Rick Moody had come out of looking at the replay monitor pumping his fist in celebration. The whole mess was really strange, I've never seen anything quite like it.

After the shot, LSU inbounded the ball quickly and tried to go the length of the floor. There was no dead-ball interval (except for the clock stopping after the made basket) to review the play before the time expired. Putting time back on the clock at that point seemed to be the only equitable thing to do.

However, after seeing several angles on the replay since last night, I haven't seen one yet that is conclusive enough to warrant overturning the call.

Edit: And just for the record, I'm not an Alabama fan (I'm a Tennessee fan, which is about as far from a 'Bama fan as you can get), but everyone in the place except for LSU fans (UT and Auburn fans included) were cheering for Alabama.



[Edited by bigwes68 on Mar 6th, 2005 at 12:20 AM]

Yeah, I think Bigwes describes it about right. Piecing together what I saw on TV and what was said in the papers, it seems like:

Bama makes shot. One ref signals a three, another signals a two; scorer sees the three.

LSU inbounds the ball immediately -- before the refs even realize that there's a problem -- and runs the floor. Not until after regulation do they realize that two of them made a different call. So then they have to go to the monitor and review it.

The question is: assuming that's what happened, do the rules allow them to put the 5 seconds back on the clock and re-do the play at that point? If not, what should they have done?

That's it in a nutshell.

Bigwes,

The viewers at home never saw an angle clear enough that would have had "overturned" a call, but if the officials had conflicting signals, then I guess you are not overturning. At that point, it seems like you would be trying to "decide".

Wish we had the officials story. I have a friend that is officiating in the tournament. When you posted that you were courtside (he had your game), I thought that you might be him (same first name). Anyway, i'm thinking about calling him to get the officials' version.

Mulk

Apparently he had both our games (Fri. and Sat.)

Don't know who we've got tonight against LSU, but I'd bet it's Bell, Kantner and Enterline.

LSU / ALA women's game
 

From the NCAA rule book :
Rule 2 Section 5 Art. 5. Officials shall be permitted to consult a courtside monitor to determine if a try for goal is a two- or three-point attempt, regardless of whether the try is successful.


The crew erronously counted a score. As a result of the error, Alabama did not foul LSU. Because the officials had definite knowledge of the time when the error occured, they could re-set the clock back to 5.1 seconds. Just goes to show that mistakes can happen even at the highest level with "veteran" officials.

Well, here ya go:

Quotes from Brian Enterline, Crew Chief, on the instant replay decision:

(from Ed McGrahan, The Greenville (S.C.) News)

Ed: Can you walk me through those last few seconds of the game?

Enterline: We had a shot that was either a two or a three to either tie or win the game. So what we did, we went back and looked at replays and the first angle we had wasn't a clear angle so I requested another angle and that angle clearly showed her right foot on the line. So, we determined it was two point and put 5 seconds back on the clock because that's when it went through last.

Ed: Was it the crew's initiative to look at the video at that point?

Enterline: Part of our ruling when it's tying a game we can go to the monitor to make sure there isn't a timing or scoring error.

Ed: Was there a discussion before you decided to go to the tape?

Enterline: What we end up discussing is what all the officials had and then we request to have a certain pinpoint brought up on the replay. That pinpoint was brought because it was clearly in the time frame (for a correctable error) and we wanted to take a look at it and see. Not only a correctable error but we were at live play so we were at five seconds so we want to make sure because that's a huge thing. If her foot is on the line it is a two pointer and that's something we have to be 110% sure of - there's two lines out there, the top of the arc and then the three point line and her foot was clearly on the three point line and so she made a two point shot.

Ed: When you say clearly, this much - that much...

Enterline: The front part of the foot was clearly on the line and we have to be 110% sure or we'll go with the three.

Ed: (to Bill Stokes, Coordinator of Women's Basketball Officials) ...and I take it you've looked at the tape several times and you support the decision?

Stokes: Two of the angles were not clear but the last angle we looked at, her right foot was touching the line.

Enterline: It's a tough play but we made a decision totally unbiased. We make sure that the decision is as professional and unbiased as possible.

Ed: Given the flow of the game and all...

Enterline: We can't determine that, we can look at it at that point. As officials we don't bring in the swings of the game, crowd favorites. Our job is to call the game, the best way we can and with the use of replay - if we didn't have replay then we would be going into overtime but because we have replay opportuniies if we make it a three then it's not fair to the other team. We have to be as fair and unbiased as possible.

Re: LSU / ALA women's game
 

do you have a rules reference for that part of the decision?

In other words -- I understand that they correctly went to the monitor at the next dead ball to fix the scoring error. That's fine under 2-5-5, as you say.

But is there a rule that says, at the end of a game, if you make a correction under 2-5-5, you can also go back and re-play the time between the disputed call and the dead ball correction?

Hoops,

i understand going to the monitor and fixing the 2, but nobody is answering your real question. and, mine by the way. what rule did they use to replay the entire 5.1 seconds? what if either team had scored again during the first 5.1 seconds timeframe? what if either team had committed a common foul? would they have erased all action and played the 5.1 over?

the replay is the question. it's not like the clock was started improperly.

must be a college thing. could even be a women's college thing?????

mulk

That's still what I want to know to. Is there a rule reference that says putting the time back on the clock is correct?

There was no timing error in this case...

One further clarification -- in a subsequent game on TV, it was apparently explained this way:

because the review was initiated by a disagreement between the two refs, time and play could be cancelled; if, however, the review had been initiated by a coach's challenge, time and play could not be cancelled.

I have no idea whether that's accurate, and I have no idea what the rules reference is for that... but that's apparently what one of the rules officials told the TV people.

Yes. What if Alabama had stolen the inbounds pass and LSU surrounded the girl so she would have just cradled the ball and waited for the time to run out OR if she made a shot attempt that missed ?You would have negated a great defensive play for Alabama. I am also glad that Tennessee beat LSU for the Championship.

Did one of the officials signal a two or did the official not put his/her arms up signaling the "three"? I don't know if all the members of an NCAA crew have to mirror a three since they should be watching their assigned areas. It would have been difficult for them all to have seen it.

The LSU player did, in fact, drive the length of the floor and missed a shot attempt. So a good defensive play by Alabama was negated.

I am not totally sure about this, and unfortunately I didn't TIVO the game, but: I believe the trail official did put his arms up to signal a three (and that's what the scorer saw). I didn't see it, but it sounds like the center official (who was positioned in front of the LSU bench) signalled a two.

Hoops,

I have heard that time should not have been put back on the clock. Also, that the R in this game, Enterline, was removed from the championship game for this rules misapplication. Might hurt his NCAA tourney schedule. I think that he has done at least a Final Four game in the past.

Mulk

Interesting -- thanks for the follow-up.

It seems to me that this was just one of those crazy situations for which there was no governing rule. I wouldn't be surprised if they added a provision in the future to make it clear.

Seems to me like they did the best they could under the circumstances. If they had just changed the score from a three to a two (and not replayed the final seconds), that would have been even worse for 'Bama. Seems like they had to resort to a little rough justice instead.

I don't know how y'all feel about this, but I actually can't fault them too much for a misapplication.

The only thing that really bothered me about it was how Enterline kept saying to the press that the foot was "clearly" on the line and they were "110 percent" sure. From what I saw on the TV replays (which I think were the same that they had on their courtside monitor), it really wasn't clear at all. Their insistence on certainty made it seem like they were trying to cover something up.

I wish they just would have said:

"One of us called it a three, one of us called it a two. LSU inbounded before we could stop play to get it straight. The monitor wasn't totally conclusive, but it looked like she was on the line, and the center position ref had a better look, so we had to go with the two. There is no rule specifically covering this situation, but we thought that the best resolution (in fact, the only fair one) was to replay the final seconds."

They do exist...
 

Hoops,

My rules knowledge is primarily high school and there are rules for governing this situation. Apparently, as Mr. Enterline found out, they have them for Womens' college, as well.

Ideally, the review should have occurred when the ball went in. I believe one of the officials had knowledge immediately that there was a conflict, but failed to bring it up until after time had expired. Why didn't she, who knows?

The angles that the viewers saw were not that conclusive, but a 3rd must have been made available to the crew. The points were corrected and the right team won, but a lot COULD have happened in the 5.1 "do over".

mulk

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.

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.

A toe on the line???
 

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.

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

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?

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.

Jurassic Referee says: 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.

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.

ronny mulkey writes: 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.

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.

Snagwells writes: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.:D

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.

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.

Yes.

Quote:

From a fan's perspective.

(snip)

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

Quote:

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)

That's nice.

Which players do you mean?

The players on offense, or the players on defense?

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!

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.

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."

Rocky Road wrote: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.

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

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

Rule 2.

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.

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.

Helluva officiating philosophy you got there, Aurabell.

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".:D

PS-you were right about Rocky though. Gotta hand you that much.

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!

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

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

JR writes: First JR I don't think you should award a three if you see the foot is on the line. I do think you should award a 3 if the picture leaves any doubt.

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]

A few comments to this post...

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.

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.

ROFLMAO! I don't know, JR...maybe if we could read the replay of the previous posts on a friggin high defiwhatever monitor...maybe then my sarcasm would have come thru better?? Worth a try - I'm going on-line to bestbuy.com right now and see what I can pick up for the board...be right back...

[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?