End zone camera clearly shows 3-signal plus touchdown signal from the C. Doesn't bang it.

We know that part, but he does not count it and that is the key. Normally I would always use the "count the basket signal" even if it is a successful 3 point shot.

Peace

He doesn't wipe it off either. So, given a 3-signal and touchdown, which is most likely the original call, bucket or no?

They system used is the Xos Digital system. It is shot with HD cameras (2 sidelines and 2 endzone) but the feed shown on the monitor is not in HD. It is a separate feed than what is shown from the broadcast. In my experience with the Xos system, I have not seen a broadcast feed shown in the non-HD monitor when reviewing a play.

IOW, the crew most likely did not see the ESPN camera version of the play and were left to decide using the Xos version of the play on a small monitor in non-HD.

I don't think the ball was completely out of the shooter's hand when time expired. But I also don't think it could be any closer. Good grief. :eek:

The coach does acknowledge his team's role in gassing the big lead, so have to give him a nod for that.

Thanks. that's "counting it" in my book. No need to "bang" it home on a three -- "banging" is a two point mechanic.

The call should have stood, imo -- not enough evidence to overturn (again, depending on what they saw on their monitor).

They are going to look at it anyway.

As I said, I think these guys really do not make a decision until they look at the monitor.

Peace

I think they looked at the monitor and iit was close so they went with the side that kept the score tied.

I do think they erred on the side of keeping the score tied as well then make a call that would be reviewed and debated the other way. And if the Pac 12 cannot get HD feeds for the officials then shame on them for being cheap. It was hard to determine in HD picture, it really must have been hard to do in SD pictures.

Peace

Crews in TV games get the same camera angles used on the broadcast. That's why they're in contact with the production truck on monitor plays.

Yes, they're going to look at it because by rule they have to but they're not going to the monitor to come up with a ruling, or at least they shouldn't be. The women's CCA manual says:

I added the emphasis. I know I'm quoting the women's manual so if the men's manual is any different let me know. However I doubt that it is since the review critera for last-second shots is the same in both codes. The C went up with the touchdown signal after the ball went in so he didn't have to do anything else to show it was a made three-point goal. Once he did that, the crew had to come up with "indisputable video evidence to overturn the ruling on the court." (CCA manual again)

Either way it goes, they found enough evidence in their mind to make that decision. Now we might disagree with it on some level, but that does not mean they were not convinced as some here are. It is just like an accident on the road and people that witness have different accounts of what actually took place. And I am sure it does not help that they were not looking at the best picture that many of us witnessed either.

Peace

One with no previous knowledge of the Xos system used by the Pac12, WCC, and Big West would think so but, knowing the system like I do, the crew is in contact with the Xos camera guys not the production truck.