What do you got?

[ref2coach]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.