If the clip were a bit longer, you'd see how it all developed (A friend made the clip for me...I have the DVD but have never captured short clips form one...need to figure out how).

At 2:06, the ball was FT line extended at the sideline on the L's side. So I was out at the 3-point line extended.

At 2:05, it was passed across the top and then down to the corner on the T's side by 2:04....very quick ball movement.

I was starting to cross the lane when that player drove the ball back into the key near the upper FT lane space. So I backed out as the play was coming to my side.

At 2:01, he reversed it back to the wing where the player immediately drove into contact at 1:59.

Being across the floor would have been ideal but the way the play shifted around, I'm not sure anyone else would have been there unless they were frantically moving all over the place.

It certainly looks a whole lot more like a charge on the video than it did on the floor from my angle. I'm not entirely convinced, however, that the video angle is right to conclude I was simply wrong (it was for a couple other calls ;)). It certainly isn't looking through the play any more than I was. I don't think you can tell if the defender was moving forward or not from that video angle...which is why I had judged it a block. I'd love to have a view looking from the endline on the side where the contact occurred....where I would have ideally been.

Where you should've been with a third official, right?

Ideally, Oregon would join the 21st century and give you folks that help. With a third official, someone would've been there.

I had a PC all the way based on first glance. And yes, that floor is a crime against basketball.

Assuming the start of the play was the same, I don't think so. I think any L would have backed out of crossing just the same in a 3-person game since the ball was being driven into the lane.

What would be different, however, is that the C would have been at the FT line extended or lower rather than several steps above the top of the key and I would have expected the C to have the better view of that play than a T.

From what I see here, I'd have a PC, but if you think his body was still moving into contact, I'm not convinced you were wrong.

So they afford to utilize U of O's court, but not pay for a 3rd official? :confused:

I have a PC. Since it's only 2-man Camron has no choice to come over and make a call from across the paint b/c the Trail is in no position to see the play.

In this case, it is not directly a money argument.

The argument for 2-man in the tourney is that not all officials work 3-man. No HS games are 3-man in Oregon...only college officials would have 3-man experience. Of the tourney officials, some are also college officials, but not all, particularly at the middle and lower level tourneys. So, they're not going to throw a new system on HS officials at a HS tourney. That would be worse than what you give up by only using 2.

So, yes, they use bigger courts to hold all of the people that want to buy tickets but use 2-man because of consistency.

It does become a cost issue when you consider that to have officials ready to work post-season games with 3-man crews, you need to have them working 3-man crews throughout the season.

And Gas Is Only Thirty Cents A Gallon ...
 

Hey? What's wrong with the twentieth century? Here in Connecticut we're just doing fine in the twentieth century. Rotary telephones, mechanical adding machines, manual typewriters, and two person games. Wait? No. Two man games.