Wild ending -- video review -- MN-SDSU women

[womens_hoops]

Video and report at this link.

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArti...&ATCLID=747601

SDSU down one, inbounds, makes a layup right at the buzzer (this is at 2:20 of the five-minute video). Extremely close call as to whether she makes it.

Refs (John Morningstar and Ron Applegate and one other) go to the monitor, and waive it off (at 3:30 of the video). Then the SDSU coach complains and comes to the monitor with the refs. They review the video for another minute plus, and then count it.

On the local news, you could see that the backboard LED light came on a moment after the clock reached 0.0. The ball was still in shooter's hand at 0.0, but it was out of her hand by the time the LED light came on.

But under 7(2)(b), aren't they supposed to go by the clock if it's visible?

[GoodwillRef]

Basketball
NCAA
Rule 5: Scoring and Timing Regulations
Section 7: Beginning and End of Period - Article 2


Each period shall end when the red light or LED lights has become activated. When the light fails to operate or is not visible, each period shall end with the sounding of the game-clock horn.


a. In games when the red light is not present, the game-clock horn shall terminate players' activity.
b. In games with a tenth-of-a-second game clock display and where an official courtside monitor is used, the reading of 0.00 on the game clock is to be utilized to determine whether a try for goal occurred before or after the expiration of time in any period. When the game clock is not visible, the officials shall verify the original call with the use of the red / LED light(s). When the red / LED light(s) are not visible, the sounding of the game clock horn shall be utilized. When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the original call stands.

[Dan_ref]

It's not clear to me what they based either of their 2 decisions on. I'm not even sure she beat the clock or the LED.

[womens_hoops]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

It's not clear to me what they based either of their 2 decisions on. I'm not even sure she beat the clock or the LED.

Yeah, on the video at the link, you can't really see it. That's the video from the home team's scout camera.

The game was televised, so there were several other angles available. On the local news, they replayed it over and over. (Unfortunately, I can't find any of those videos available on the web.) It looked to me like the ball was pretty clearly still in her hand at the 0.0, but it was out of her hand by the time of the light. It was certainly a very close play. I'm not sure they got it wrong, but I was just wondering:

Based on the rule quoted by GoodwillRef above, they should have used the clock, not the light (assuming the clock was visible on the monitor). right?

It also seemed a little weird to change the call, but certainly it's better to get the call right, even if you have to change it. It also seemed a little weird to allow one coach to sit with you at the monitor and argue his point of view. I haven't seen something like that before. Again, if they got the call right, then maybe it doesn't matter, but it seemed unusual.

Morningstar called it the closest play he'd ever seen. I think I have to agree.

[Scrapper1]

From that one angle and with no slo-mo, it looked good to me, but obviously it wasn't that easy. Great piece of video and thought-provoking.

So, with no video, if there's a light, we use the light to determine if the shot is good. If there's no light, then it's the horn.

With video, if we can see the clock, then the clock determines if it's good. If we can't see the clock, then the red light is used. If there's no light, then we listen for the horn on the tape.

Right?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

From that one angle and with no slo-mo, it looked good to me, but obviously it wasn't that easy. Great piece of video and thought-provoking.

So, with no video, if there's a light, we use the light to determine if the shot is good. If there's no light, then it's the horn.

With video, if we can see the clock, then the clock determines if it's good. If we can't see the clock, then the red light is used. If there's no light, then we listen for the horn on the tape.

Right?

I think that's right, but only if the clock that is shown is the "real" clock or is syncronized with the "real" clock. Sometimes (many times?) the clock on the screen is not official, so the light is used.

[TriggerMN]

Bob makes a good point. During many of the past Final Fours, a clock in the lower corner of the screen may say 54.8, for instance, but the clock in the upper deck behind the hoop view may say 55.3, so they are not exactly synched up.

The question remains, though, why did all 3 officials allow the entire SDSU coaching staff to look over their shoulders during the review process? It is obvious that the crew allowed the SDSU coach to get them to change their call after reviewing video.

The rules state that coaches may not use video on the floor to aid in coaching. Perhaps they need to amend that rule to say that coaches also cannot use video on the floor to officiate!

There is also the fact that because of the call being overturned, it is obvious that the crew misinterpreted the rule somehow, at some point. I would not be surprised to see a one game suspension for all.

[BktBallRef]

Looked good to me.

[bigdogrunnin]

I, personally, cannot believe he signalled "no basket" then went back and changed it. Should have been certain and stuck to his position. AND . . . why would he let the coach come over and look at the monitor with him?

[swkansasref]

Originally Posted by bigdogrunnin

I, personally, cannot believe he signalled "no basket" then went back and changed it. Should have been certain and stuck to his position. AND . . . why would he let the coach come over and look at the monitor with him?

I concur. After he signaled no basket they should have walked off the court.