Buzzer Beater. Or Not?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

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.

NO. imo, of course.

From a game management perspective, be sure the crew knows who is responsible. That person make a call. All officials have an opinion. Get together and if someone else has "100% knowledge" that the call is incorrect change it, otherwise live with it.

[BEAREF]

Here's a little snipet from a newspaper article that describes what transpires just prior to the start of the video.

"MCW had the ball and used a pair of timeouts — one with 19.7 seconds left and another with 7.3 seconds showing — in an attempt to set up a last-second shot.

But a sideline out-of-bounds pass from near halfcourt was stolen by Traylor, who quickly got the ball to Will Mulder as Worthington looked to score in rapid fashion after a sudden change of events."

Now I'm even more perplexed on the positioning of the officials

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

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?

Would 3-13 help us here? I know that the equipment didn't fail, but can we still go to the table?

If the red/LED light fails to illuminate and the timer’s signal fails to sound, or is
not recognized by the officials, the timer shall go onto the court or use other
means to immediately notify the nearest official. If in the meantime, a goal has
been made or a foul has occurred, the referee shall consult the timer:
ART. 1 . . . If table officials agree that time expired before the ball was in flight,
the goal shall not count.
ART. 2 . . . If table officials agree that the quarter or extra period ended, as in
5-6-2 before the foul occurred, the foul shall be disregarded, unless it was
intentional or flagrant.
ART. 3 . . . If table officials disagree, the goal shall count and/or the foul shall
be penalized, unless the referee has knowledge which alters such ruling.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Would 3-13 help us here? I know that the equipment didn't fail, but can we still go to the table?

If the red/LED light fails to illuminate and the timer’s signal fails to sound, or is
not recognized by the officials, the timer shall go onto the court or use other
means to immediately notify the nearest official. If in the meantime, a goal has
been made or a foul has occurred, the referee shall consult the timer:
ART. 1 . . . If table officials agree that time expired before the ball was in flight,
the goal shall not count.
ART. 2 . . . If table officials agree that the quarter or extra period ended, as in
5-6-2 before the foul occurred, the foul shall be disregarded, unless it was
intentional or flagrant.
ART. 3 . . . If table officials disagree, the goal shall count and/or the foul shall
be penalized, unless the referee has knowledge which alters such ruling.

No, Billy. The rules clearly state that the table crew only gets consulted in the case of an equipment malfunction. Barring that, the officials on the court need to make a decision.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by nevadaref

no, billy. the rules clearly state that the table crew only gets consulted in the case of an equipment malfunction. Barring that, the officials on the court need to make a decision.

2-13-1

[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.

[icallfouls]

The crew picked a bad time to be out of position and worried about proper rotation. The C should have stayed with play, who cares if they get back into proper position, at this point just stay put and have an opinion on the shot.

The shot was after the buzzer.

The score is tied, just play the OT

[OKREF]

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