Buzzer Beater. Or Not?

[twocentsworth]

This basket was NO GOOD on each of the three times I watched the video (if I watch it thirty more times I still won't be able to figure out what the officials were doing before, during, or after the shot.......).

[rockyroad]

Have to agree with the others so far. Did not get the shot off in time. And I have the same questions as Rich...plus one more: is Minn. one of those states that does not use 3 man crews until a certain point in the playoffs? Anyone know?

[jTheUmp]

3-person isn't mandated in MN.

In the Twin Cities metro area, a couple of conferences require 3-person for varsity games. One conference that I know of uses 3-person for both varsity and JV games.

Some schools schedule 3 officials for their "top tier" varsity games, and 2 officials for the "regular" varsity games.

This season I had 10 2-person varsity, and 4 3-person varsity.

I have no idea if outstate schools (Worthington is in the southwest corner of the state) use 3-person during the regular season or not.

[paulsonj72]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

3-person isn't mandated in MN.

In the Twin Cities metro area, a couple of conferences require 3-person for varsity games. One conference that I know of uses 3-person for both varsity and JV games.

Some schools schedule 3 officials for their "top tier" varsity games, and 2 officials for the "regular" varsity games.

This season I had 10 2-person varsity, and 4 3-person varsity.

I have no idea if outstate schools (Worthington is in the southwest corner of the state) use 3-person during the regular season or not.

I also don't know if 3-person crews are used in the regular season but in the post-seasson 3-person crews are used from the sub-section semifinal games om this section on. That is the 2nd round and this was a 2nd round game

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by paulsonj72

I also don't know if 3-person crews are used in the regular season but in the post-seasson 3-person crews are used from the sub-section semifinal games om this section on. That is the 2nd round and this was a 2nd round game

So quite possibly these were three guys who had worked few - if any - three person games during the season?

Could explain the positioning issues.

[zm1283]

The shot is no good, and that is the least of their worries. What in the hell are they doing? This is a complete clusterf*ck from the get go. There is a Lead, but then we have a Center and Trail on the same side of the court "stacked" on top of each other. This does not look good folks.

Edit: After watching again, the guy that is tableside did not pick up on a rotation just before the change of possession that went away from the camera. He should be the new Center, the guy with his back to us should be the Trail, and the guy in no-man's land opposite the table in the corner should be the new Lead. This is what happens when you just throw three guys out there who hardly ever work 3-person mechanics.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by zm1283

the guy that is tableside did not pick up on a rotation just before the change of possession that went away from the camera. He should be the new Center, the guy with his back to us should be the Trail, and the guy in no-man's land opposite the table in the corner should be the new Lead. This is what happens when you just throw three guys out there who hardly ever work 3-person mechanics.

There wasn't even a rotation, really, nor should there have been since all three weren't in the frontcourt and there wasn't much time left in the quarter. I think the guy who was tableside simply forgot he was the C in the heat of the moment (FUBAR #1). The guy who had been the new T before the change of possession may have tried to compensate once he saw the guy on the other side run to the end line so he stopped in no-man's land (FUBAR #2). Why they both signaled the goal was good is a mystery (FUBAR #3). The guy who ended up being the T on the final shot is the only one who did what he was supposed to.

And yes, the shot was late. I would post a still frame but it's blurry since the camera was handheld.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

There wasn't even a rotation, really, nor should there have been since all three weren't in the frontcourt and there wasn't much time left in the quarter. I think the guy who was tableside simply forgot he was the C in the heat of the moment (FUBAR #1). The guy who had been the new T before the change of possession may have tried to compensate once he saw the guy on the other side run to the end line so he stopped in no-man's land (FUBAR #2). Why they both signaled the goal was good is a mystery (FUBAR #3). The guy who ended up being the T on the final shot is the only one who did what he was supposed to.

And yes, the shot was late. I would post a still frame but it's blurry since the camera was handheld.

They weren't in the frontcourt for the possession going away from us and the camera, I agree. I'm talking about the possession before the ball changes hands and we go the other way for the game-winning shot right when the video starts. It looks like the old Lead (New Trail) had just rotated to the side where the camera was right before the change of possession. The guy that was tableside did not realize this and thought he was still the old Trail/new Lead and went to the endline as a result instead of being the new Center like he should have been. I can't tell if the guy in the corner on our side figured it out or not. He looks completely lost like everyone else.

Edit: After watching it yet again, you could be right...I have no idea. You would think if the guy in the far lower left of the screen knew he was the Lead, he would have acted like it and let the guy tableside do his thing and let him live and die with his screw up. I still think the new Trail initiated a rotation and neither of the other two picked up on it. They were still in their old positions when White got control of the ball and took it the other way.

[Bad Zebra]

I'm looking at it full screen...stopping and starting as the play progresses. Shooter collect the pass at :0.4 and unloads. Unfortunately the entire frame is blurred as the clock hits 0.0 and it is impossible to see ball location. It is razor thin as to whether it should count. I'm willing to defer to the officials on the floor here. I don't see it as conclusively "no good".

All that being said, floor positioning of the officials is a debacle. Looks like there was a late rotation at the other end that wasn't picked up. Two LEADS at one point...no center. Makes ya wonder if there was any communication who had last shot.

Another example of why I like to have all three officials have an opinion when it's close.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

I'm looking at it full screen...stopping and starting as the play progresses. Shooter collect the pass at :0.4 and unloads. Unfortunately the entire frame is blurred as the clock hits 0.0 and it is impossible to see ball location. It is razor thin as to whether it should count. I'm willing to defer to the officials on the floor here. I don't see it as conclusively "no good".

Agree. Without imagining a much better video, I think it is too hard to make a conclusion one way or other. Some of these video are just not sufficient to tell much.

[BEAREF]

The quality of the video makes it very difficult to read the time on the clock and the position on the ball in relationship to the hand. As has been discussed already the mechanics causes some concern but in the end really has no bearing on the outcome of the call (at least that's my opinion).

I will throw this out for discussion:

From a game management perspective, if it's as razor thin close as it appears in the video, is it better to wave it off and go to OT? Personally, I think waving it off would be an easier "sell" and more acceptable to everyone.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by bad zebra

i'm looking at it full screen...stopping and starting as the play progresses. Shooter collect the pass at :0.4 and unloads. Unfortunately the entire frame is blurred as the clock hits 0.0 and it is impossible to see ball location. It is razor thin as to whether it should count. I'm willing to defer to the officials on the floor here. I don't see it as conclusively "no good".

All that being said, floor positioning of the officials is a debacle. Looks like there was a late rotation at the other end that wasn't picked up. Two leads at one point...no center. Makes ya wonder if there was any communication who had last shot.

Another example of why i like to have all three officials have an opinion when it's close.

+1

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Another example of why I like to have all three officials have an opinion when it's close.

They not only had an opinion, each of them sold their opinion! The fact that they all signaled a good basket (although only one of them should) makes me think the basket was good.

[OKREF]

Didn't look like it was off in time to me.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

This basket was NO GOOD on each of the three times I watched the video (if I watch it thirty more times I still won't be able to figure out what the officials were doing before, during, or after the shot.......).

They are officiating a playoff game duh!