Colorado vs Arizona - Shot at the Buzzer
 

If he did not have replay then he would accuse the officials of having it out for them. Bottom line he got out coached down the stretch of regulation and lost on a very, very, very close call. I first thought the shot would count, then when they showed the angles it was not clear. I could see the call either way.

What he needs to be mad at the kid that fouled 30 feet from the basket to tie the game, not replay.

Peace

Take A Letter Maria (R.B. Greaves) ...
 

Somebody should write a letter.

Up 8 with 90 seconds to play, you shouldn't have to get a 35 footer at the buzzer to win.....

I don't think I could have overturned on that replay, but I wasn't there and don't work D1. Much respect to them for a tough call.....should have never been that close.

If you're gonna have and use replay...then get it right. Seems like the shot should have been good by just a hair. Why was it not?

I haven't even watched the clip, but I'm going to have my morning coffee while reading the mouth-breather comments at the end of the article.

I thought the exact same way. The C at the bottom of the screen (Verne Harris) signals the 3pt attempt but I didn't see the other hand go up upon the ball going in; then again, if the 3 pt signal is given, the ruling before replay should be a good basket.

Most D1 games on the west coast, have a system in place to for video review (whether the game is televised on ESPN, Fox, CBS, or not). The monitor that is used courtside is NOT in HD; I have used the system and the picture definition is average at best. The best angle of the shot being released on time is the side angle. Even then, it was difficult to determine from the confines of my 1080p television at home; I can only image what the crew was looking at from the non-HD courtside monitor.

Was there enough to overturn the original ruling of a made bucket? I'm not so sure but then again, we didn't see the version of what the crew saw courtside with the non-HD monitor.

Watching the video, was the shot originally called good or not? I didn't see any signal from any official at all. What do they do if they go over to the monitor and the video malfunctioned by chance and there is no video to look at? I know that didn't happen, but what if it did? You have to make a call on the floor one way or another. Help me out if I missed the call.

The calling official signaled that the shot was successful.

http://i.imgur.com/9argw.png

I happen to agree with the coach. I have never been a fan of instant replay. I understand the upside, but prefer to leave the human element in the game. Call me a purist......;)

I will take Ed Rush's word for it; as a general rule I think those guys are great decision makers.

I would still like to see other replays, etc, such as what Mr. Rush saw. Just so that I/we can see exactly how close this one was. I'd dare say it's among the closest I've ever seen!

I love how everybody cries and moans for more instant replay to "get it right", then when instant replay is used to make the cal, they still moan and groan...just makes me laugh.....:)

Yep... this is a no win. Remember, the officials HAVE to make a call on the floor, then can go to replay to review. Having seen the play, it is so close that it is really hard to referee without replay assistance.

Here's some video...
 

Here's the video from the game and freezes provided by ESPNU. I also put in a ten-second freeze of the moment the LED light goes on. Discuss

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/65pGbmyUhJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm not saying this is right but I speculate that the call was close enough it was easier to wave it off and play overtime. That way the players were determining the outcome of the game. Note: I don't agree with this but have a feeling that is what was going through their minds.

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?

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."

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?

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

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 (:D). 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.

Like I said before knowing the system in place courtside:

They got it wrong.

Is this a trick question?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.