I disagree, I think. Your sentences do leave some things open, but if you're saying what I think you're saying...

If the foot in 2-point land comes up so slightly before the foot in 3-point land that it requires a frame-by-frame analysis to determine, the correct call is a 3 (by rule), but we do not fault those who rule a 2 (limitations of human observational abilities).

I agree with this.

I thought starting anything wasn't relevant ;) :D

On the radio yesterday (WMVP), the story was Jim Nance told the refs at the break it was a two. So they took a look. Not that one point meant anything to the outcome.
And he got it wrong, frame-by-frame. It's the national championship - yeah, you're gonna look fxf.

Tiger better watch his putts this week. ;)

It's not, I only mentioned it to show that he could start his motion with both feet on the floor and still lift one foot first, having his position determined by the remaining foot on the floor. It was for your benefit. :)

I'd amend this to say that if the front foot goes up so closely to the back foot that it takes frame-by-frame replay to determine it, it's inconclusive and therefore we should stick with the original call.

Except that some people can notice things when looking at video frame-by-frame. To those people, the result is conclusive.

The rule should be cleaned up or outright changed. There is no way that an official should have to judge which foot left the floor first when one is inside and the other is outside of the 3pt line.

The rule ought to be that each foot of the shooter must last touch the floor completely behind the 3pt line when jumping for a try or the shot is only worth two. That would make it clear and much simpler to officiate.

I disagree. I think that such a rule change would hamper offensive moments and take away from the grace of the game.

Let me for a minute think about the number of times that I've had to determine if a shot is a 2 or 3 as the situation presented itself in the NCAA game. I think the answer is less than 2.

And on TV? Maybe a few...

The fact that we have people arguing that this shot should have been a three is enough proof for me that we need a clarification/change. I cannot believe that when the 3pt shot was added to the game that it was the intent or vision of the rule writers that such an attempt be worth three points.

BTW ... grace of the game? ;)

Challenge for today: find video of a shot from the 3 point line where one foot is lifted noticeably before the other. My theory is that it just about doesn't happen. As for the case in point, my recollection is that the shooter was not squared up,** and he started to rise up on the front foot first. But as he extended to actually jump and take the shot both feet left the floor too close together to make a call without replay. Even after looking at replay, I thought it was a 2.





I think this is when the hop comes in which was mentioned in the newspaper article. The shooter adjusts one, or often both feet, before taking a jump shot.

Replay of the game was on again a little while ago. First time I had watched the play using frame by frame. The foot inside the line leaves the floor, I believe, 3 frames before the other foot. I did a little research and found reference to 24 to 30 frames per second on dvr, so suffice to say that 3 frames ain't a very long time. Packer explained the situation: "That foot was part of his release foot."

Approximately 30 frames per second. 3 frames ~ 0.1s.

IIRC, there was once a theory that the human eye can't differentiate if 1 frame isn't inline with the rest of the video. I don't believe this conjecture.

"Release foot?" WTF?!

I may have misunderstood, (you ever misunderstand Packer?) but I believe this was a direct quote.