Gotta get the obvious
 

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.

Mater Dei is the "Duke" of HS basketball... they get all the call/no-calls! :D:D:D

Gary McKnight is not my favorite... But I did enjoy sending him home in the semi-finals of the 91 season of the CIF playoffs. We took him down with Reggie Geary, Miles Simon and a couple other D-1'ers on that team... The fact we had Cherokee Parks on our team did help!

under NFHS rules they cannot use the video to determine a foul

I don't think he was suggesting they could go to the video... I think he was saying, in games where there is a camera that can show you kicked the holy hell out of a play... you have to get it right.

That being said, the NFHS is not the end all and say all here. In the Texas State Semi's and Finals, a video monitor is available and can be consulted as a State Adaptation.

Therefore, your statement may or may not be true and valid depending on local edicts.

I'm pretty sure no one was saying that. More the fact that with every game being on tape today, we have can't pass on calling the obvious because the tape will prove us wrong later.

Well it's not as if Texas is going against the NFHS seeing as one of the rule changes this year was allowing review in the state championship series. But as a general rule you are right on Fed not begin the final say.

the first part makes sense...

the rest, rubbish...

NFHS only allows replay for replay to "determine if a try for goal at the expiration of time in the fourth quarter or any overtime period (0:00 on game clock) should be counted, and if so, determine if it is a two- or three-point goal."

ok, then...texas isn't following NFHS rules...simple explanation...

doesn't make my statement/ruling any less true

you are correct regarding determining a foul... I did not read it all the way through... I just read NFHS can't use video.... Then again there aren't any levels that I know of where you can consult video to determine any common fouls.

Here's the play:

YouTube - Mater Dei vs. Etiwanda -- No-call on game-tying three-point attempt

I saw this game and what you have to understand is that this all took place with about 5 seconds left in the game. The ball was being inbounded after a made FT by White. The Black inbound pass was made near the baseline and pass receiver took two dribbles and passed it to a teammate at half-court. The black player who received the pass at halfcourt quickly passed it to his teammate on the wing in front of his bench. What you see is the aftermath from that pass. The final horn went off after the shot was released.

The closest person with a look at the play was the L who was standing on the baseline. The C had to officiate the play (pass to the wing) at half court and when the shot by black went up, the C had about 3 players blocking the view of the attempted shot. The T was still running up in the backcourt about FT line extended.

It was a play where the crew should've known that a 3pt shot was the only play that black was going to attempt. In my opinion, the L should not have been standing at the baseline; he should've have been about 2 feet away from the closest player to him anywhere near the 3pt line. I think he missed because he was too far away from the black player and that the contact happened on the far side of where he could see.

Kelvin,
In Ohio all OHSAA State Finals are televised -- a number of others are as well. Pretty much every Ohio State game is televised -- as are nearly all Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, ACC, etc. Beyond that, virtually ALL high school and junior high games are taped by someone meaning an opportunity to end up on YouTube.

To expect all games to be perfectly called is unreasonable. As long as humans are officiating the game, mistakes will be made. I find it interesting that you commented that there was some strange coaching and time management, yet it was a call not made by an official that decided the game. Even though I did not see the game, I would be willing to bet that this call at the end of the game was not the only "mistake" (assuming it was a mistake) that the officials made during the game. Each team had 32 minutes to pull away from their opponent. Neither team was able to do that. While I agree that we hate to see a missed official's call near the end of a game, we cannot be perfect.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the fact that the officials cost the team the game. By the way, even if the FT shooter was a 72% FT shooter, there was only a 37% chance that the shooter would have made all three shots -- ignoring the added pressure of shooting three FTs at the end of a game. Even if the player had made all three, there was only a 50% chance the team would have won the game.

Bottom line: Even IF the official makes the call, there was about an 18.5% chance that the shooter's team would have won the game. Hardly a sure thing as you implied with "the officials decided the game because a clear foul happened and did not put the shooter on the line."

Just my $.02 as a coach and official and statistician.

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.

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

I disagree.

Which side of the court was the L on?

If the L was on the ballside here, there's no reason at all he can't get this foul from the baseline. We all know that in transition the L may need to help out here.

I can't see the L being further up the court on this shot, though. The shooter and defender aren't exactly at half court here.

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

Yeah, 'cause that's what he said.

The L was on the baseline on ballside.

In my opinion, the L should not be at the baseline and should be about 2 feet away from the deepest 3pt threat on his side. With 5 seconds left, a ball going out of bounds on the baseline is not as important as finding your closest competitive matchup for an obvious 3pt shot attempt to tie the game.

When I am two feet away from something, I have trouble being able to officiate it.

Exactly.

The baseline is a perfect spot to get this foul. In 2-person and in NCAAW, the L has this shot in a halfcourt set, so why can't this official get this?

I think any closer to the play than the baseline and the official's too close. JMO.

I understand what you are saying. In this case, I believe the L was officiating wide on the baseline and got caught not seeing the arm contact on the opposite side of the shooter's body. By being on the baseline, he had a bad angle at the play because he was straight-lined. Positioning himself before the play started is key in this situation.

Being closer (say between the FT line and the baseline) along the key and the L would have had a great angle at the play.

+1

If the ball is in the frontcourt, there is no reason for the L to be anywhere but the endline for many reason, not the least of which is that being right next to a play is rarely the best place to be to officiate it.

You wanted the L standing on the court near the lane?

I'm a proponent of "go where you have to to officiate the play" but there are a LOT better places to officiate a potential 3-point shot than in the lane. :confused:

In the conference that I work, our supervisor says get to the best angle to see the play on a last second shot. The L has to realize that a 3pt shot is the only play that the black team is going to make. He has to know where the rest of the crew is and players in his area. He does no good by just standing on the baseline when he sees a player on the wing in the 3pt area; he ended up being straight-lined on the shot. There were no other players in his area except the shooter and 2 defenders. If he positioned himself along the key below the FT line, I believe he would have had a better look at the play.

I think he should've seen the arm getting hooked regardless of where he stood on the endline. I don't think this is really a positioning discussion or issue -- rather it's a judgment or cojones discussion or issue.

Maybe I'm not envisioning this play right, but I see no way being on the court, halfway up a lane line, is the right place to officiate a try on the wing beyond the 3-point line. If anything, that would be the place most likely to get straight-lined.

But, that's just me. Seems to me that the best place for L to be heading into the play as you describe it is very wide on the endline. Like in the corner.

...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.

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.

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.

You're not the only one who envisioned it that way. I was thinking the exact same thing.

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.

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

+1

Whatinthehell else does the L have to do in this situation but go with the ball? Going into a final shot like that, he doesn't have anything off-ball to worry about, for sure. If the L was on the end line and ball side as written above, he has to get that call. He couldn't be in a much better position to do so on a shot in front of the bench area imo.

(With the caveat that I didn't watch the video ...)

You might be right on this play. But, suppose the same setup and someone came running out from the block at the shooter. Now, if the official was inside, he'd be straightlined on that contact and you'd (or some would) be arguing that the official should be wide to see between the players.

+2 - JR, what is this world coming too!! This is like TWICE in a row we have agreed. Hopefully you are still taking your meds and this is not a sign of illness on your part!!:D (I'll be checking my meds just in case!)
If the "L" were at or near the junction of the 3 pt line and baseline he would have a GREAT look at this play. No need to be on the court, that seems sort of bizzare. (No matter how you spell it)
As for the FT shooting % that makes no sense. For starters, I don't know the FT% of ANY of the players on the floor, maybe I need to work on that. Secondly, what if the player were only a 50% FT shooter, yet was 0 - 3 from the FT line in the game. Using the % argument, the shooter would make all 3 thus keeping him at 50%.

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.