Gotta get the obvious

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

So if the person was only a 55% shooter, you stick with the no-call?

Well, 72% is pretty close to 67%, so I guess the guy would've made 2 out of 3. Not enough to force OT. Nothing more to see here.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

my point is that if they are a 72% shooter then let the team win or lose on the FT. The appropriate person would have decided it not the no call.

...and my point is that to make a statement that the REFEREES decided the game with ONE CALL is simply folly. Assuming the shooter was a 72% shooter, there was slightly better than a 1/6 chance the shooting team would have ended up winning the game. In other words, there would have been roughly an 82% chance that the no call did NOT alter the outcome of the game. Had the shooter been a 60% shooter, the odds that the official's no call actually altered the winner would be at under 11%.

Put another way, there was an 82 - 89+% chance that this one call had NO EFFECT on the winning team.

My only point is to illustrate that it is unfair to take a play that represents 1/1920ths of the game (one second) and place 100% of the result of the entire game on this one play.

That said, in looking at the long video (the last 2 minutes of the game), it appears as though the Lead has him arm raised (with a fist???) as he is moving from the endline along the sideline. He did not immediately sprint off of the floor. Kind of strange.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

...and my point is that to make a statement that the REFEREES decided the game with ONE CALL is simply folly. Assuming the shooter was a 72% shooter, there was slightly better than a 1/6 chance the shooting team would have ended up winning the game. In other words, there would have been roughly an 82% chance that the no call did NOT alter the outcome of the game. Had the shooter been a 60% shooter, the odds that the official's no call actually altered the winner would be at under 11%.

Put another way, there was an 82 - 89+% chance that this one call had NO EFFECT on the winning team.

My only point is to illustrate that it is unfair to take a play that represents 1/1920ths of the game (one second) and place 100% of the result of the entire game on this one play.

That said, in looking at the long video (the last 2 minutes of the game), it appears as though the Lead has him arm raised (with a fist???) as he is moving from the endline along the sideline. He did not immediately sprint off of the floor. Kind of strange.

And without the foul, the kid had a zero percent chance.

I gotta say, I find this entire post and this line of thinking quite strange.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

And without the foul, the kid had a zero percent chance.

I gotta say, I find this entire post and this line of thinking quite strange.

Rich,
The original post indicated:
Just watched the California sectional between Etiwanda and Mater Dei..

I thought some strange coaching and time management at the end but Mater Die is up by 3 and Etiwanda has a last second shot for three right in fromt of their bench.... The player who is going to shoot the three gets grabbed and no call.... The initial view and physics of the play made it look like a foul... when looked at in slow motion and replay it clearly was a foul.

Moral of the story when youve got video you gotta get it right. Video does not lie... Three shot foul down by three could have made a difference...

We always hear let the kids decide the game. in this case the officials decided the game because a clear foul happened and did not put the shooter on the line.

My points were and are that:
1. Just because a game is on video does not mean that an official can be perfect all the time.
2. There is NO QUESTION that the official missed the call (lack of a pair or otherwise), BUT that call did not necessarily determine the outcome of the game.

While it is true that the shooting team's chances went from somewhat thin (10 to 20% or so) to zero, I still find it inaccurate to state that this ONE CALL decided the outcome of the game -- regardless how bad the call (no-call) may have been.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

...and my point is that to make a statement that the REFEREES decided the game with ONE CALL is simply folly. Assuming the shooter was a 72% shooter, there was slightly better than a 1/6 chance the shooting team would have ended up winning the game. In other words, there would have been roughly an 82% chance that the no call did NOT alter the outcome of the game. Had the shooter been a 60% shooter, the odds that the official's no call actually altered the winner would be at under 11%.

Put another way, there was an 82 - 89+% chance that this one call had NO EFFECT on the winning team.

My only point is to illustrate that it is unfair to take a play that represents 1/1920ths of the game (one second) and place 100% of the result of the entire game on this one play.

That said, in looking at the long video (the last 2 minutes of the game), it appears as though the Lead has him arm raised (with a fist???) as he is moving from the endline along the sideline. He did not immediately sprint off of the floor. Kind of strange.

That all depends on how you want to do the math. It's true that arithmetically, this call was not that likely to have determined the game, but geometrically, it was pivotal. The no call had a maximum impact (arithmetically of 3 points). But geometrically it took the teams chances of winning from some low percentage to strictly zero. A 100% decrease in chances of winning. In analyzing whether the officiating errors were determinative I think you need to look at both in some reasonable balance.
________
Laguna Beach Resort Jomtien Condo

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Moral of the story when youve got video you gotta get it right. Video does not lie... Three shot foul down by three could have made a difference...

Somebody had to ask. Does this mean you are less concerned with getting it right if you know there is no video?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Somebody had to ask.

I disagree.

[Tio]

Clearly a foul.

We need to be at our best when the game is on the line. Down 3 with seconds left, you have to know a 3 pt. try is coming.