The officiating at the end of this game is why basketball can suck

[Quattro]

To be fair... Hitting what you think is a game winning shot, a double dribble not called that ended up as a basket, and then finding out after the game that an illegally subbed-in player hit a big 3 pointer... Pretty brutal.

We didn't find out after, we knew when it happened and so did the announcers. The refs just did not know the rules or were literally retards.

 

[JCatano]

Hey, DB -

Probably along the same lines as you thinking the loss was a some sort of conspiracy. Fair enough?

Blame UCONN for the goaltend called a block and Jay Williams with 14,000 flops in the title game. Karma just hit the wrong team, I guess?

 

[JCatano]

We didn't find out after, we knew when it happened and so did the announcers. The refs just did not know the rules or were literally retards.

I thought the same thing after seeing the coaches motioning and saying something, but then figured it was at their players after a Buff walked over to them. I doubt Tad would have let that go. I wouldn't have at least.

 

[dio]

The funny thing is that you keep blabbing on about this secret feed, yet you can see right on the screenshot posted two pages back that the refs are looking at the ESPN feed. They have the screen graphics and everything.

 

[JCatano]

The funny thing is that you keep blabbing on about this secret feed, yet you can see right on the screenshot posted two pages back that the refs are looking at the ESPN feed. They have the screen graphics and everything.

The funny thing is that you assume it's the only footage they looked at, especially after showing you that the truck crew says the refs can look at the main feed if they choose to do so. Choosing to do so doesn't mean it's what they based their final decision on...

 

[DBT]

I figured the NCAA would come out and make some sort of public statement by now. They are getting ripped a new asshole.

 

[HotRack]

What's cracking me up through this entire thread, is while I commend JCat for his persistence, he keeps something about he is 70% sure that the shot was not good (or good, I don't know, he keeps talking in circles) and 30% good/not good. Either way, he is NOT EVEN 100%CONCLUSIVELY (new word) SURE about what happened.

Refs initially said the shot was good. The rules JCat keeps citing says there must be CONCLUSIVE evidence to reverse the call on the floor. He presents no conclusive evidence. Botched call, we got screwed, won't be reversed. We'll kick ' Zona' so sanctimonious associatedin February . Done.

 

[Buffnik]

Skidmark -

The ball would need to be out of his hands at 0.1 in order to have proof that there was no contact. Seeing it out of the hand at 0.0 doesn't do any good, because of the lapse of time between 0.1 and 0.0.

That is true. Clearly out of his hand at 0.1 would leave zero doubt.

But it's possible to inbound with 0.1 on the clock and win with a tip in. So showing a fingertip on the ball at 0.1 wouldn't waive the shot off either. In fact, if it's on the tip at 0.1 rather than down in his hand, and then it's clearly out in the first 0.0 frame, that says the shot should count.

That is what it sounds like what we have is the refs believing they see a fingertip still touching at 0.1 seconds. If that's their story, then they are guilty of misinterpretation & incompetence leading to a bad call instead of willful malfeasance. I'm willing to accept that they're incompetent morons rather than calling them cheaters.

As someone produces a photo that shows Chen touching the ball at 0.0 I will take back everything I've said. Without that, there's only one thing to say: Ball don't lie.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Skidmark -

The ball would need to be out of his hands at 0.1 in order to have proof that there was no contact. Seeing it out of the hand at 0.0 doesn't do any good, because of the lapse of time between 0.1 and 0.0.

I think the NFL gets it right. To paraphrase, the ruling on the field stands unless there is irrefutable evidence to overturn the call.

The first point is that the ruling on the court was a basket.

The officials elected to waive off that basket based on evidence.

The evidence that was used is NOT irrefutable because it has not been presented.

There is nothing conclusive about the ball touching the player's finger at 0.1. The game is still going on at that point. Players are allowed to make shots during official game time.

To satisfy the basketball viewing public, restore the faith in officials, and restore the integrity of their call, there is a burden on the officiating crew to be transparent. Transparency shall not be provided in the form of tweets, but visual imagery. Provide not one still image, but a series of consecutive frame by frame images from the "official" source.

In God we trust. Everyone else shows pictures.

In that series of pictures, irrefutable evidence would include one of two possible scenarios: 1) The ball is out of the shooters hand at the last frame showing 0.1 on the official clock; or, 2) The ball is touching the shooter's hand on the first frame showing 0.0 on the clock.

The basketball viewing public demands nothing less than these two scenarios.


In the absence of disclosure of any "official" video, the basketball viewing public has the only evidence available, which comes in the form of ESPN's HD broadcast.

This widely available evidence does not meet the NFL standard of irrefutable evidence. We can conclude from discourse that there is pixilation and blur that might or might not indicate the ball touches the extended fingertip of the shooter at 0.1.

There is no ESPN imagery that has been presented that meets the second standard; the ball touching the shooters hand with zero seconds on the clock.

My dear JCatano, all we have from your contribution is conjecture. The best conjecture is the enemy of real damning proof.

You can argue the worst case scenario; because the ball might be touching the hand at 0.1, it stands to reason that the ball might also be touching the hand at 0.0.

An equally valid argument to the contrary is that the ball was touching the hand between 0.1 and the immeasurable increment of 0.00002 while losing contact with the hand at 0.00001 of game time.

Is it good for basketball when the officials get to rule on the 0.1 standard , ignore the 0.0 standard AND not release official irrefutable evidence?

 

[tante]

Did you guys know there is secret video footage of the wtc 7 controlled demolition. It is stored in the basement of the McKale Center next to the JFK footage and challenger demolition. Game tape don't get moved to storage until Monday.

 

[JCatano]

HotRack -

I have the right to feel 70% confident that it was the correct call, just as you guys feel like you're 100% confident that it was the incorrect call. Think about that statement in relation to what you said about conclusive evidence, though... Not sure how many times I need to state that the we did not see all of the footage they saw, since we don't have access to the PAC 12 video.


Buffnik -

I saw the David Lee tip-in with 0.1 seconds about 5-6 years ago. Human reaction takes a big part in it, because the clock-guy isn't going to be able to start the clock right when contact happens, unless it's an incredibly lucky anticipation press. Pressing it slightly late is probably the only way that tip-in looked good (if you forget about the actual rule).

Asking for the exact frame they looked at will never work, because there is no reason to require whatever they looked at to be public. I'm not implying it's because people are trying to hide something; it just doesn't seem necessary, since fans don't make the call.


Skidmark -

As I've said, the evidence to overturn may be in the footage we didn't see. Demanding it to be public is sure nice, but that's all it is... A demand. It doesn't mean Colorado won. If it did come out, you very well may end up saying, "Oh... Oops. I was wrong." You never know. Same deal with me, although I'm not 100% sure it was the correct call.

Irrefutable evidence has nothing to do with fans. It has to do with officials looking at the evidence and making the correct call, which may have happened.

Talking about ESPN footage, screenshots from rabid fans, etc... That is not irrefutable evidence simply for the fact that we haven't seen all of the footage the officials had access to.


tante -

You guys have copies of the same, secret WTC stuff. The officials will be using the league-wide system to film more conspiracy content.


Let's go at it this way:

Are you guys (not necessarily you, Skid) 100% sure it was the incorrect call even though the truck crew verified that the officials have their own cameras/system/footage via the PAC 12 which means none of us have seen all of the evidence?

 

[FChairbanks]

I'm 100% sure that 70% of the country thinks that CU got hosed

 

[dio]

Yes

 

[JCatano]

The country hopes you aren't a lawyer, dio. Maybe you were on OJ's team...?

Since this is just down to trolling now... Anyone have the footage where the clock doesn't start as soon as Colorado touches it?

 

[FChairbanks]

The country hopes you aren't a lawyer, dio. Maybe you were on OJ's team...?

Perception is everything

 

[JCatano]

Perception is everything

Sure. When it's your reality. Sort of. Not.

 

[FChairbanks]

Sure. When it's your reality. Sort of. Not.

Not following you...

 

[azbuff]

Games apparently also end after regulation even if they're tied. Colorado could have simply outplayed Arizona in the overtime period and overcome the bad call, or was that just out of the question? As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, Arizona had its share of bad calls go against it during the game, but you guys have brushed those off as non-game changing calls that could be overcome. Well Colorado could have overcome this, but they didn't. Can't have it both ways.

Pretty much out of the question, given the deflating reversal of victory, UofA's momentum, the crowd factor, and the fact that our best player had fouled out.

Your point about calls going against UofA is misguided. As has also been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the Chen shot was the only call the refs reviewed and also the only call we can definitively say the game hinged on. Someone earlier made an excellent analogy to your point: a Seattle fan claiming the Packers weren't jobbed because of a bad pass interference call against Seattle earlier in the game. That was pretty much spot on.

BTW, final foul totals: CU-26 UofA-19

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I'm 100% sure that 99% of the country thinks that CU got hosed

Fify

 

[JCatano]

Not following you...

The phrase... "Perception is reality".

I don't agree with it.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Orr -

Showing a screenshot with the ball in his hand as time expires is what the officials may have seen:

Bruce Pascoe ‏@BrucePascoe
FWIW, UA official told me that Pac-12 installed a new video system for officials only at its schools this year, so refs do not use TV feeds.

We're looking at screens with blur, the ball out of his hand at 0.0 (which is pointless), cropped screenshots showing the overlay clock (not official), etc.


Da Lama -

And, that may be exactly why they don't use truck footage. One camera may be showing the coach on the sideline during play for later use, and the others may be at a bad angle for a review.



Hey "dip****", learn what motion blur, tears, and light do to print and digital pixels. Oh, hey look... You can see her leg through the ball. Weird!

This is the next frame:

0.0 on both backboard clocks when the ball is out. The overlay clock is not official. It's a clock on the north or south side (there are two) of the arena for fans to view and has a delay. The time between the two frames is what the officials likely saw with their footage, since it is full motion.


As for people saying there isn't any conclusive evidence to overturn the original call of a good shot, that is an incorrect assumption. As I've pointed out 3 times in here, the officials are not using the same footage as we are seeing. They have their own, and there may be conclusive evidence in that footage to overturn the call.

Earlier I asked you to provide a photo of 0.00 or a red-lit backboard and the ball still touching Chen's fingers. So far that hasn't materialized.

If the refs, using different cameras have that, fine, but I think their cameras would necessarily be showing a different reality. We have sufficient evidence with the current frame-by-frame from the side. And that darned picture of the ball touching Chen's fingers with 0.00 on the official clock still haven't appeared.

What do you make of that?

 

[FChairbanks]

The phrase... "Perception is reality".

I don't agree with it.

Thanks for the clarification, and for keeping your posts to a manageable length...

 

[Uncle Ken]

I'm not 100% positive, as I've already stated numerous times. I'm pretty sure they did. That's about as far as I'll go.

1. The only screenshots seen are at 0.1 and 0.0 with an obvious lapse of time in between frames. It's not like officials are going to use screenshots, anyway. They'll use full motion stoppage.
2. You have no idea if they used HD or not. Ask the PAC 12 officials what they installed into all league arenas.
3. See #2.
4. The time (in tenths) overrides the light for a reason. Ask the NCAA if you need an explanation.
5. They overturned it with footage on the PAC 12's system installed for reviews. Saying the officials didn't see what you saw holds no water, since you aren't looking at the same footage.

You're correct. They were bad both ways. That doesn't necessarily relate to seeing footage for a review, though.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Junction]

There is other footage. I've posted about it plenty of times, and you (or someone) just choose to say it's not real. The actual truck crew said they have their own cameras and footage. Bruce Pascoe was told by a UA official that they have their own system. If you don't want to believe it, I don't have any problem with that.

Except that is NOT what has been said. That's what you're reading into it. The people in the truck said replay isn't using footage from the truck. As in, the production truck is not feeding them the replays.

And here is what Bruce Pascoe actually wrote....

The Pac-12 installed a new video replay system before this season to assist officials, but that system does incorporate some television feeds and some others, so it is uncertain what the officials reviewed.

A UA official who worked the video monitors Thursday deferred comment to Suzy Mason, UA's senior associate AD for event management, who deferred comment to the Pac-12, which issued only Rush’s statement.

Clearly your contention that the TV production people said that the replay officials don't use TV footage is simply wrong.

Nowhere does he say that the conference has an entirely separate crew generating footage for the replay system. He says there is a "new video replay system". He says nothing about a new source of video, or about there being separate "Pac 12 footage". He says they use "other footage" in addition to the television feed. Probably jumbotron feeds that are produced in many arenas. The idea that the conference is hiring cameramen, investing in television equipment and video production equipment, just to get some footage to add to TV feeds is utterly ludicrous. And yet you keep acting as if you have produced some evidence that this mystical Pac 12 production exists. You haven't. You just want to believe that is what those quotes mean.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I'm not agreeing. You think a different feed simply has to do with slapping tickers on the footage.

SCO ‏@TucsonSco
@budd1e_lee We had better angles inside the TV truck that I'm not sure the refs got to see cause they use a different system. 1/2

Do I need to paste more posts that show it's different footage?

So...you agree with us?

You've been suggesting the refs had better footage and now you suggest theirs was worse? How could they find conclusive evidence in worse footage when the better footage shows that the ball had cleared Chen's hand by 0.00?

You're a ****ing mess, aren't you?

 

[JCatano]

Earlier I asked you to provide a photo of 0.00 or a red-lit backboard and the ball still touching Chen's fingers. So far that hasn't materialized.

If the refs, using different cameras have that, fine, but I think their cameras would necessarily be showing a different reality. We have sufficient evidence with the current frame-by-frame from the side. And that darned picture of the ball touching Chen's fingers with 0.00 on the official clock still haven't appeared.

What do you make of that?

Why would I have a screen from the PAC 12 system footage? Mind telling me how to get access?

You "think" their cameras wouldn't show something different (angle) or possibly of better quaility. None of us can state that to be true. That's the crux of the issue. You all keep telling me I'm just dealing in conjecture by mostly thinking the call is correct, yet you are all 100% correct just because you see screenshots (that aren't even conclusive). That isn't the case, because none of you have seen all the evidence, either.

You want to say the screens are conclusive, but we see one with 0.0 on the clocks and a basketball looking like a football above a wrist that looks like it went through a shredder and a partially invisible hand. The other screen is one with the ball away, but the unofficial clock being used. Even the 2 frame .gif from the back can't be used... Ball in hand at 0.1... Ball out of hand at 0.0... Lapse of time in middle.

Where is the screen of the ball away with 0.1?

 

[PhillyBuff]

Except that is NOT what has been said. That's what you're reading into it. The people in the truck said replay isn't using footage from the truck. As in, the production truck is not feeding them the replays.

And here is what Bruce Pascoe actually wrote....



Clearly your contention that the TV production people said that the replay officials don't use TV footage is simply wrong.

Nowhere does he say that the conference has an entirely separate crew generating footage for the replay system. He says there is a "new video replay system". He says nothing about a new source of video, or about there being separate "Pac 12 footage". He says they use "other footage" in addition to the television feed. Probably jumbotron feeds that are produced in many arenas. The idea that the conference is hiring cameramen, investing in television equipment and video production equipment, just to get some footage to add to TV feeds is utterly ludicrous. And yet you keep acting as if you have produced some evidence that this mystical Pac 12 production exists. You haven't. You just want to believe that is what those quotes mean.

Dont mess with Junction!

 

[Uncle Ken]

The only dancing is the fervor by your fans.

- Have you seen the PAC 12 footage? No.
- Without seeing the PAC 12 footage, can you say with 100% certainty that there wasn't any evidence that called for an overturn? No.

That's been my entire point, which you all seem to gloss over. Me saying that I'm "70%" sure they got the call correct has put some of you into nerd-rage mode, and caused others to ignore the bulletpoints. Feel free to speculate that the PAC 12 system doesn't have this or doesn't have that, but that doesn't mean much when you're taking those guesses and labeling them as fact.

OMG, OMG, OMG!!! You.are.so.precious! Hahahahahahaahaha!

Your entire point has been the unique angle of the refs unique camera system generated the indisputable evidence required to overturn the shot. Right?

Your point is, even though the ESPN footage provides sufficient evidence that the shot was off, there might be other evidence, of the same event that suggests otherwise.

But...and then this is where it gets awesome...you then go on to say that you're uber confident he DIDN'T get it off on time. But you haven't seen the video either. You are basing this on less conjecture than what you are blaming CU fans for harboring. This might be the most poorly argued fan by a visiting fan in Allbuffs history!

Please never leave. I'm begging you to stay.

 

[JCatano]

So...you agree with us?

You've been suggesting the refs had better footage and now you suggest theirs was worse? How could they find conclusive evidence in worse footage when the better footage shows that the ball had cleared Chen's hand by 0.00?

You're a ****ing mess, aren't you?

Where did it say that the footage was worse? The truck crew guy just said he had better angles, but he wasn't running the PAC 12 cameras. In other words, he doesn't know about the actual footage. He was talking about camera position, since he also said the truck used 5 (I think PAC 12 used 3). The officials also used their footage as you can see in the earlier screenshot, but that doesn't mean it's the only footage they used.

Are you implying we can call the PAC 12 up and ask for the footage? (Rhetorical.)

 

[Uncle Ken]

Skidmark -

The ball would need to be out of his hands at 0.1 in order to have proof that there was no contact. Seeing it out of the hand at 0.0 doesn't do any good, because of the lapse of time between 0.1 and 0.0.

Holy.****ing.****! Hahahahaahahahahahahaaha!!!!!!!

You don't even understand how time works! Hahahahahahahahahaahahahhaa!