The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   UCLA vs. SMU (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/99545-ucla-vs-smu-video.html)

hbk314 Thu Mar 19, 2015 07:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 958280)
What do you mean by this statement? That play was not reviewable. Are you saying it should be?

I'm saying I have yet to see a replay after the fact that justifies it. I can see how it would be tough real-time.

jpgc99 Thu Mar 19, 2015 08:48pm

What is the point of this thread? Are we using this play to get better or to take votes on "worst call of the tournament" - which is really, an absolutely ridiculous claim. I've been reading a long time, and although only recently began sporadic posting, often wonder how many people ragging on challenging calls like this are actually officials.

If we aren't using the video to get better, what is the point? Three pages of comments and very few takeaways or rules investigation.

APG Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpgc99 (Post 958287)
What is the point of this thread? Are we using this play to get better or to take votes on "worst call of the tournament" - which is really, an absolutely ridiculous claim. I've been reading a long time, and although only recently began sporadic posting, often wonder how many people ragging on challenging calls like this are actually officials.

If we aren't using the video to get better, what is the point? Three pages of comments and very few takeaways or rules investigation.

hbk isn't an official

jpgc99 Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 958295)
hbk isn't an official

No surprising. I'm just waiting for someone to request that you post full game film from every tournament game with an excel spreadsheet of every play, graded by you as correct or incorrect.

I think video is an excellent tool and we all are in your debt for your work. but the requests seem to become less about learning and more about complaining around this time each year.

Rich Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by APG (Post 958295)
hbk isn't an official

He shows up to rip officials and entertain us.

ODog Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:45pm

Anyone have any insight as to what the C might've been indicating by his hands-apart "this many inches" signal right after the whistle blew?

Just like an NFL official demonstrating how short a team is of a first down after a measurement.

He did it right away and walked toward the table. I assumed he was saying "it was 6 inches wide of the hoop" and I anticipated a review, but that was before I knew this call is not reviewable.

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

AremRed Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODog (Post 958307)
Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

That's what I think it is. When they show the officials going to the monitor the official does the signal again to the scorer showing that he had a three.

APG Thu Mar 19, 2015 09:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODog (Post 958307)
Anyone have any insight as to what the C might've been indicating by his hands-apart "this many inches" signal right after the whistle blew?

Just like an NFL official demonstrating how short a team is of a first down after a measurement.

He did it right away and walked toward the table. I assumed he was saying "it was 6 inches wide of the hoop" and I anticipated a review, but that was before I knew this call is not reviewable.

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

Signaling he had a three...no need to go w/a full touchdown signal in this instance.

hbk314 Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 958298)
He shows up to rip officials and entertain us.

I'm not ripping officials in this case. I'm judging the call based on the rule posted in this thread.

Camron Rust Fri Mar 20, 2015 01:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbk314 (Post 958314)
I'm not ripping officials in this case. I'm judging the call based on the rule posted in this thread.

Well, either you don't understand the rule or your idea of possibility of entering the basket is off.

If it is coming down such that it will hit the rim, it has some chance of going in even if that chance is very small. The defender has to leave it alone until after it his and bounces back out or is CLEARLY going to fall short of the rim.

hbk314 Fri Mar 20, 2015 01:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 958329)
Well, either you don't understand the rule or your idea of possibility of entering the basket is off.

If it is coming down such that it will hit the rim, it has some chance of going in even if that chance is very small. The defender has to leave it alone until after it his and bounces back out or is CLEARLY going to fall short of the rim.

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

OKREF Fri Mar 20, 2015 02:32am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbk314 (Post 958330)
Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

No it isn't.

Rufus Fri Mar 20, 2015 06:45am

Have to admit I thought the officials had blown this one. From the usual broadcast angle it appeared the ball was below the rim and wide right (i.e., did not have a chance of going in). No question on it being a try or on downward flight.

Looking at the other angles the ball was contacted above the rim and, as has already been stated, still had a chance of going in. Great call by the official who had the best look at it. Clutch call that I hope I have the guts to make when put in the same situation.

Raymond Fri Mar 20, 2015 07:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbk314 (Post 958330)
Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

Only for a non-official who questions something, gets an answer, then continues to question it. You'll never be satisfied, so what is your purpose with continuing the conversation?

hbk314 Fri Mar 20, 2015 07:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 958339)
Only for a non-official who questions something, gets an answer, then continues to question it. You'll never be satisfied, so what is your purpose with continuing the conversation?

Because it was at best going to glance off the side of the rim and fall harmlessly to the floor. It was never going in.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1