Colorado vs Arizona - Shot at the Buzzer

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I first thought the shot would count, then when they showed the angles it was not clear. I could see the call either way.

So what you are saying is the replay was inconclusive and the bucket should have counted then?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

So what you are saying is the replay was inconclusive and the bucket should have counted then?

How would he know, he wasn't at the table when they made the decision?

[DLH17]

As far as the officials are concerned:

Pac-12 coordinator of officials Ed Rush issued the following statement on Friday:

"Game officials reviewed video replays of the end of regulation in accordance with NCAA playing rules and determined the ball was still on the shooters' fingertips when the official game clock on the floor expired. Per Conference protocol, the officials conducted a thorough review court side and viewed multiple angles of the play before confirming the ruling. I have reviewed the video replays and agree with the ruling."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

So what you are saying is the replay was inconclusive and the bucket should have counted then?

I did not say it was inconclusive, I said it was close. I can see the argument either way. It does not clearly look out of his hand and from the blur of the video you could say the ball was out of his and and another angle think the ball was in his hand. Now I saw this in HD too and I went back and forth.

And it appears all the official did was signal that this was a 3 point shot that went in knowing they have to look at the video.

Peace

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say it was inconclusive, I said it was close. I can see the argument either way. It does not clearly look out of his hand and from the blur of the video you could say the ball was out of his and and another angle think the ball was in his hand. Now I saw this in HD too and I went back and forth.

And it appears all the official did was signal that this was a 3 point shot that went in knowing they have to look at the video.

Peace

That is the definition of inconclusive isn't it?

In any event, they didn't signal good or wave it off on the floor? Because with an inconclusive replay like that I don't think you could have overturned either one.

And btw, what else is Ed Rush going to say?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

That is the definition of inconclusive isn't it?

In any event, they didn't signal good or wave it off on the floor? Because with an inconclusive replay like that I don't think you could have overturned either one.

And btw, what else is Ed Rush going to say?

I think you are looking for a black and white answer to something that none of us were involved in. This is not the NFL and the standard is not the same to overturn a call. They look at the video to see if he got the shot off or not and they determined it was not off. I am just saying I could see an argument either way. But the officials on the game may feel it was clear to them based on what they saw. And if it is true that they did not see an HD feed of the game, that is even worse IMO.

Peace

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

That is the definition of inconclusive isn't it?

I don't referee basketball, so I certainly don't know the rules on the use of replay in the NCAAs. But is the "inconclusive" criterion even used in basketball replays as it is in football?

I switched over from the Oregon/K-State game during a commercial break to see the end of this game. My Christmas present to me was a 65" Samsung 8000-Series LED Smart HDTV with 240Hz refresh (). I kept stopping and rewinding the replays with my DVR. And I couldn't tell from the two angles they showed if the ball had definitely left the shooter's fingertips when the backboard light lit up. It was just that close.

So anybody who says they definitely saw a valid shot or not is blowing smoke. The refs, IMO, simply had to guess, and we'll never know if they guessed right or not.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And if it is true that they did not see an HD feed of the game, that is even worse IMO.

Peace

Like I said before knowing the system in place courtside:

Originally Posted by @ESPNAndyKatz

From our game crew: The monitor the officials in CU-Arizona used court-side was standard def, not HD.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

And btw, what else is Ed Rush going to say?

They got it wrong.

Is this a trick question?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't referee basketball, so I certainly don't know the rules on the use of replay in the NCAAs. But is the "inconclusive" criterion even used in basketball replays as it is in football?

"When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the original call stands." 5-7.2.b

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

...
And btw, what else is Ed Rush going to say?

A supervisor has never admitted to a mistake by his crew?

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the original call stands." 5-7.2.b

Wasn't the original call a made 3-pointer?

[Tio]

We also don't know what angles the crew had. They may not have had the same camera angles that are being shared now. There were 3 very experienced officials on the crew. I'm sure they did the best with the information they had.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Wasn't the original call a made 3-pointer?

I see the attempt signalled, but I don't see anyone signalling that it was good (i.e., released before the 0:00.0 or red lights). Not saying that they didn't, only that I don't know.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I see the attempt signalled, but I don't see anyone signalling that it was good (i.e., released before the 0:00.0 or red lights). Not saying that they didn't, only that I don't know.

This is one of these we would have to talk to the crew issues. He certainly did not "bang" it in like you normally see. I think these guys are so used to last second shots being reviewed they just go to the monitor and not do anything. Not saying that is right, but that certainly seems to be what was done in this specific case.

Peace