Is anyone surprised that we haven't had a discussion about pixels, high defintion, and sensors in the floor yet on this thread? LOL. IMO, great call...def. 3 points AND no foul.

Well?
 

Anyone else think this "going to the monitors" is getting out of hand?

Sorry, but I'm old school and this replay stuff if starting to go the way of the NFL.

Anyone else think this decision took way to long? I saw the play live and saw the 2 replays and was convinced that it was correctly called, except for the foul. The "C" signaled just as folks said and that should have been it! Burr should have simply asked the "C" was it a three, and went with that after two inconclusive replays. I thought it wore on way to long.

As for the call/no call. Let's just say that if the clock was at the 15 minute mark of the second half, I doubt it would have been passed on. I think it would have been called. But, as the coaches want it, and as the announcers say it, "let the players decide the game" and I guess they did just that. My only beef is that if it were way earlier in the half, it probably would have been called. FWIW, all the games contained way to much contact that wasn't being called, and poor WVU got the worse of Louisville's thuggery.

Other than that, KUDO's to the "C" for picking this attempt up when it left his hands. He was in great position and signaled what He saw and should get an atta-boy for that one.

goose

Re: Well?
 

I think instant replay is a great idea, often we have games decided by a last second shot. If it takes 5 minutes to decide on who wins/loses then lets do it.

Don't know what game you were looking at Trigger but Burr was the C.

I think to not have a replay in that circumstance would have been a much bigger problem than having one.

Five minutes, ten minutes, whatever minutes.

I also like that despite the blathering of Nantz and Packer if you watched the officials' body language during the review, I don't think there was any part of them thas was worried about "conclusive evidence" standards or whether "the kids deserved 5 more minutes" or "the longer this goes on the longer you have just let the play stand" or any of that other crap.

I'd like to think that Burr was looking at the screen with one thought. This is either a two or a three and my only job is to figure out which. And he did. Correctly in my opinion. It made me think of that old quote that's attributed to baseball umpire Steve Palermo (but is probably apocrophal) when asked whether it was true that a tie at first base goes to the runner -- he reportedly said "there's no such thing."

Disagree....the intent of video replay is to either confirm or overturn the ruling that occurred during play. The NHL has been doing this for years - and the rule of thumb is the same (extend this to NFL as well): the video MUST be conclusive in the eyes of the official to overturn the original call. That's the way it should be...otherwise, what's the point of using it?

And while I get an upset stomach doing this, I have to say that I thought the TV commentary during the review was pretty good - the longer it went on, the more obvious it became that the video was likely not conclusive enough to overturn the "3".

Afterwards, all I could think about was how incredibly impressed I was with how the crew handled it, and how much care, attention, and professionalism they displayed. Truly instructive for the rest of us.

If it is truly inconclusive, then of course you go with the call on the floor. (Obviously, if there's a guy standing in front of the camera and you can't see the foot or the line, you go with the call on the floor.) My point -- which I don't think I made very well -- is that the announcers seemed to have a much quicker trigger on when one should just default to the call on the floor. The notion seemed to be that if it's close, overtime is the right answer, which led to griping about why it was taking 5 minutes. I think the crew seemed to have a much different attitude -- if we were wrong, we're wrong; we have to look at everything we can look at as close as we can look at it and if it's a two, it's a two, and "five more minutes" would be as unfair for MSU as wrongfully reversing the call would be to Kentucky.

With three officials looking at the replay, or with at least one official looking at the replay and the other two officials looking at the official looking at the replay, there were no officials looking at the players, or is that the alternate official's duty ?

I think both Center and Trail got a good look.
mick

I heard that a "tie" goes to the umpire. :D

I heard this too! :)

Hey Mick - do you really think that the UK and MSU players would be engaged in any activity that would cause a problem during the video review?

The players were on/near their respective benches. The crew did the right thing and took their time to get the call right. Don't worry about something that ain't going to happen!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[B]Jim Burr (R) was the C in this play and I think it was Mark Whitehead (U1-?) was the T in this play.

The C and T were in good positions for this 3 pt attempt and normally, the T is primary for the 3pt attempt from were it was attempted. But the T was screened by a UK-2 player and the C was straigt lined with respect to MSU-1 defending against the shooter (UK-1). The C signaled a 3 pt attempt immediately upon the release by UK-1.

I think that MSU-1 could have been called for a foul against UK-1, BUT, I think the correct call was to not call a foul because the C did not have the best look at it.

----------------------------------------------

I'm glad to see this comment made. I'd be interested to see what the discussion would have been like among the regulars here if TubbyFanBoy had never shown up to cry foul on the last play. I'm not sure that his antics have not colored some people's judgment on the play. Maybe not, but we'll certainly never know now.

I think it was a foul. That Sparks initiated the contact is inconsequential; the defender (Torbert?) did not have legal guarding position. He was attempting to challenge the shot, and he never established a legal guarding position before bumping Sparks. Beyond that, Sparks did not lunge at him; he leaned forward very, very slightly. In fact, had there been no contact at all, his shooting motion would have been fairly characterized as very nearly normal.

The more important point, though, is what Mark brought up. Burr had as good a look as possible at the feet, but he was in a stacked position on the contact. Unfortunately for Whitehead, he had gotten himself stacked by Kentucky's #2. I'm not even sure what kind of look he had at Sparks's feet. My guess is little to none. Anyway, given the closed look each had at the play, I'm glad there was no guessing. Sometimes we guess right, but I don't think we ever guess well.

I thought a job very well done by the crew.

Jeff..I agree w/ Mick's point here. Although you may not think anything is going to happen, we've all seen crazier things occur. Now luckily, if there is a fight, they can go to the video again to see who started, punched, etc. But what if video doesn't catch it all? What if a unseen punch to the groin happens again? Do you want to be on that crew?

So the prescribed mechanic is "Don't worry about something that ain't going to happen!"

Doesn't sound right.
mick