What do you got?

Rich · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think it went in based on watching the video a couple times but as I said earlier on my first viewing I didn't realize it went in and our camera angle is in line with the C so I can see how he missed it. The kid who rebounded the ball didn't think it went in, he was looking at the offensive player jumping towards the rim and then all of a sudden the ball is in his hands.

Just a weird play. I watched a special one night about how sometimes our brains register what we expect to see and not what really happened. If the C is not expecting the ball to go in the basket and then ball takes a funny trajectory not normal for a made basket then his brain might just not have registered that the ball went through the basket.

That, and good officiating has us working the rebounding action and not following the ball into the basket unless we think there's a real chance for goaltending or interference.

At least once or twice a season I have no clue that a ball went in when a foul was called. Fortunately, it hasn't come to me counting one that didn't go in or vice versa in 25 years, but it's one of those things I'm afraid could happen, especially working 2-person mechanics.

Toren · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That, and good officiating has us working the rebounding action and not following the ball into the basket unless we think there's a real chance for goaltending or interference.

At least once or twice a season I have no clue that a ball went in when a foul was called. Fortunately, it hasn't come to me counting one that didn't go in or vice versa in 25 years, but it's one of those things I'm afraid could happen, especially working 2-person mechanics.

This is a 3 person game however, the trail probably had the best angle, opposite the camera angle. If the ball had hit the rim, or fell short he would have seen it. The Head Coach also has that same angle.

Rich · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 11:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toren

This is a 3 person game however, the trail probably had the best angle, opposite the camera angle. If the ball had hit the rim, or fell short he would have seen it. The Head Coach also has that same angle.

Except that even the trail isn't going have laser-like focus on the ball unless he's willing to ignore his other responsibilities.

ga314ref · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 05:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That, and good officiating has us working the rebounding action and not following the ball into the basket unless we think there's a real chance for goaltending or interference.

At least once or twice a season I have no clue that a ball went in when a foul was called. Fortunately, it hasn't come to me counting one that didn't go in or vice versa in 25 years, but it's one of those things I'm afraid could happen, especially working 2-person mechanics.

...because when I'm at lead in 2-man there are several times I've not known the basket was scored, and, depending on the partner, have had to check with the table.

As for this video, the C is right in the play (after the shot, you can make out the top of his head). To me, it didn't look like it went; it looked like BI and the ball hit off the arm of the player who was trying to get the pass.

There are occasions where I've been at lead in 3-man, and feeling the trail wasn't going to make it into the play I've eased up to get an angle on the potential shooter and defender, but this wasn't that type of breakaway. I don't know how the trail didn't have some real knowledge on what happened.

Until a better video comes along, I'll trust the judgment of the guys who were there.

BillyMac · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 05:59pm

I've screwed it up both ways. As the lead, using my peripheral vision, I thought that the ball went in when it actually just flicked the net, and I thought that the ball didn't go in when it actually went through a very loose net like a bat out of hell. Officiate for over thirty years, and you'll probably see everything at least once.

Brad · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ga314ref

Until a better video comes along, I'll trust the judgment of the guys who were there.

A better video? This one clearly shows everything! We shouldn't need a zoomed-in camera on the basket to be able to tell it went in!

Here are the freeze frames for those that are still questioning it!

The ball headed towards the basket...

The ball entering the basket — note the position of the ball just inside the rim...

The ball IN the basket!!

If anyone still wants to say they are not sure after that, I have no idea what to tell you!!

Camron Rust · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

A better video? This one clearly shows everything! We shouldn't need a zoomed-in camera on the basket to be able to tell it went in!

Here are the freeze frames for those that are still questioning it!

The ball headed towards the basket...

The ball entering the basket — note the position of the ball just inside the rim...

The ball IN the basket!!

If anyone still wants to say they are not sure after that, I have no idea what to tell you!!

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

Brad · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

The second photo CLEARLY shows that the ball is within the cylinder. And the third photo you can see that the orange RIM is in FRONT of the ball —*if the ball was in front of the rim, you wouldn't see the rim, you'd see the ball.

Camron Rust · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

The second photo CLEARLY shows that the ball is within the cylinder. And the third photo you can see that the orange RIM is in FRONT of the ball —*if the ball was in front of the rim, you wouldn't see the rim, you'd see the ball.

I don't dispute the conclusion, only your reading of what the photo shows....

I zoomed and cropped to just the rim in your 3rd shot.

It doesn't show enough detail to determine anything. For all I know, that is bigfoot that is near the rim. It definitely doesn't make it clear that the rim is in front of the ball. (The 2nd shot is equally inconclusive)

Brad · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:25pm

You can totally see the rim and that the bottom of the ball is clearly within it. How could the ball possibly be in front of it?

Adam · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't dispute the conclusion, only your reading of what the photo shows....

I zoomed and cropped to just the rim in your 3rd shot.

It doesn't show enough detail to determine anything. For all I know, that is bigfoot that is near the rim. It definitely doesn't make it clear that the rim is in front of the ball. (The 2nd shot is equally inconclusive)

Hey, take it to the UFO board.

ref2coach · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I believe the ball when in, those still shots are not at all conclusive. They're too grainy to tell whether the ball is in the basket or in front of it. I think the more telling evidence is how the ball changes path as it passes the rim and the net action....in a way that was consistent only with having gone in.

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

Adam · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 11:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

mbyron · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 12:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

Had to look up that one.

Camron Rust · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 14, 2012, 01:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Get real. It is fine and dandy to say we should not NEED the still shots to determine that the ball went in, BUT to say the pictures are "too grainy" to be conclusive, is just silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The original stills that were posted are too inconclusive. Until Toren went and got Abby Sciuto to fix them, all we had was speculation but no real proof.

Exactly...the original still shots couldn't even be used to prove there was a ball in the picture much less whether it was or was not in the basket.

However, the later still shots were 100% conclusive....ball in basket.