Controversial end to Oregon Tournament Game

[MechanicGuy]

Glad I wasn't on that game.....and it seems it was 2-man too

Yikes. That's a long way to go for the trail to make that call, no?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Glad I wasn't on that game.....and it seems it was 2-man too

Yikes. That's a long way to go for the trail to make that call, no?

It was, but 3-person really wouldn't have helped if the last shot belongs to the official opposite the table as is the case in some mechanics systems, including NFHS. It would have still been on the trial and he would have still been coming from as far away.

Instead, the T, coming from so far away, should have obtained input from the Lead (or both the Lead and Center if it had been a 3-person game) rather than make the call on the run.

I think it would be better on short-clock situations starting in the backcourt for L to take it (or the C in a 3 person game) regardless of which side of the court they are on. The C, in a 3-person game, is a lot more likely to be in a good position to make the call on such length-of-court plays.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was, but 3-person really wouldn't have helped if the last shot belongs to the official opposite the table as is the case in some mechanics systems, including NFHS. It would have still been on the trial and he would have still been coming from as far away.

Instead, the T, coming from so far away, should have obtained input from the Lead (or both the Lead and Center if it had been a 3-person game) rather than make the call on the run.

True, but if the goal is more information, a 3rd official (C) would have the best idea on this play, just by virtue of being within 50 feet of the play lol.

[Rich]

It's sad that anyone would try to defend 2-man as anything but the dinosaur that it is.

Who's to say that in a 3-man game that wouldn't have been the C opposite?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's sad that anyone would try to defend 2-man as anything but the dinosaur that it is.

Who's to say that in a 3-man game that wouldn't have been the C opposite?

I agree that 3-person may have improved the odds of getting the call right in many games (and we do need 3-person on these). However, the location of the throw-in in the backcourt would have still had the T opposite....so it still would have been the T's call. The T would have had to ask for input on the call....something he could have done in 2-person too. If it is his call (it was and would have been with 3-person too) and he sells the call without asking for help, what could the C do?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree that 3-person may have improved the odds of getting the call right in many games (and we do need 3-person on these). However, the location of the throw-in in the backcourt would have still had the T opposite....so it still would have been the T's call. The T would have had to ask for input on the call....something he could have done in 2-person too. If it is his call (it was and would have been with 3-person too) and he sells the call without asking for help, what could the C do?

That would depend upon which official is the R.

[Raymond]

This is a play that deserves a sell job.

If the shot is not going to count we should be hearing a whistle from the Trail BEFORE the ball is going through the hoop.