Thinking about it more, if the officials ruled it a two initially, then I think the replay still shows a two. I imagine that you need definite knowledge to overturn the call, much the NFL instant replay rule. I think that there's not enough to say it was a three.

Having said that, looking at the magnification of the main camera angle, we can then see that it was a three point attempt.

That would have been interesting because the R would have had to reverse his call!

__________________________________________________ _________

He had a great angle. Arm went up without hesitation. Shot went in. Ref slammed it home with style. No way those video angles will every be conclusive enough to overturn any call. The view from my recliner was 3 all the way!

Actually I might have a 4. Looked like plenty of body contact on that shot to me.

refnrev,

Could you contact me off the forum please. w9twj (at) hotmail (dot) com

Thanks!!

T Jones

Did anyone ever see the C actually signal a made 3-pointer??/ In other words - did anyone see him give the "touchdown" signal to the table...I ask this because in all the replays I've seen, the C immediately gives the 3-pt. attempt signal, then when it drops thru he hammers the "score the basket" signal toward the table, but then comes back up with only one hand and it sure looks like he has two fingers up to the table (as he's moving towards the table)...I never did see the made 3-pt. signal...did I just miss it, or did the cameras not catch it???

I saw the initial signal, I think that's all that really matters. He then slammed it home, good enough for me.

In this case, the C official had a great angle and immediately signaled a 3pt attempt. No replay had as good an angle as the official did. Great job, don't change the call.

I saw the initial signal also, but then it sure looks like he gives the two-fingers to the table...that's what I was wondering about.

I didn't see the two fingers you talk about.

what was the downward chop after the three signal?

Good observations. I thought he was signalling that the foot was on the line. In reality, he was tripping over his own feet, and almost fell flat on his face. A little too eager to signal to the table. I thought it was a 2 initially, replay inconclusive due to the lack of contrast between the sneaker color and the 3-point line, have to honor the initial call of a 3.

I was surprised there was no foul call. I didn't think the defender had established LGP. As a Spartan fan, I was afraid it would be called. Good job by the crew getting the calls right, even though they should have decided it sooner.

Izzo should have had Davis in for the end of regulation, and UK wouldn't have gotten a third chance. Coach redeemed himself in OT. Go Green. Go White.

I do not believe what so ever that the inconclusive call is justified, but i also have two different takes.

ONE: If a shot goes up and it is too close to call it is always a two, no matter whether you signaled a three in college and then you get to go look at the monitor. if it is too close it is a two! There is no such thing as "the look on the monitor was inconclusive therefore the ruling on the field stands" (football NOT basketball, never basketball) if the look on the monitor can not give you conclusive evidence that it was a three, than you give the team a two.

Two: THE OFFICIALS GOT IT RIGHT! I know i totally contradict myself here, but at this juncture in the game and in the tournament, you let these two great teams play it out and not win it on a technicality of the written above. So the refs say screw a little of basketball philosophy to let these two great teams play it out. So what! I wouldn't have had it any other way.

GO REFS.
by the way who worked the game I didn't get a chance to look?

If you think there was a foul there, please go back and look again.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the offender initiated the contact.

Isn't it always the one who initiates the contact that is considered the offender!?! :D