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

[JCatano]

No, you haven't, as I have patiently explained several times.

Please produce a quote which mentions the Pac-12 producing its own video footage. Not saying they don't use the production truck. Not saying they have a new video replay system. A quote specifically saying the Pac-12 is producing video for instant replays. Much less that they are using three cameras to do so.

Because right now you have produced that evidence exactly as often as you have produced an actual, as opposed to a hypothetical, picture of the ball on Chen's fingers and 0.0 on the clock. Things are not true because you say they're true, no matter how often you say it.

Directly from the truck crew:

SCO ‏@TucsonSco
@Brenkoski they have their own cameras but do have the ability to see what we are showing on air.

SCO ‏@TucsonSco
@Brenkoski The refs use their own replay system and do not rely exclusive on us in the tv truck


Directly from the media: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.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/micro/xdcam/articles/Sony-Pac12-CaseStudy.pdf

 

[dio]

But we have a picture of them using a TV feed. Lol

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[JCatano]

When I asked before what kind of video this is that doesn't have gaps between frames, you said you don't know and I should ask the Pac 12.

Do you actually know what you're talking about this time, or are you simply inventing yet another diversion?

BTW, .gifs are full motion video. Youtube clips are full motion video. Screenshots are simply full motion video, frozen at a fixed point in time. None of them have shown the ball on Chen's fingers at 0.0. What you're looking for is a different angle. Except we have seen full motion of an ideal angle. There is still no evidence of the ball on Chen's fingers at 0.0. Not because the video we've seen somehow skips ahead in time, but because there is simply no such shot to be seen on the video. What there is is a shot that appears to show the ball OFF his fingers at 0.1, but which you refuse to accept because you somehow see footballs and invisible fingers where the rest of us see a basketball that has taken flight.

I'll ask you, since the other person can't do it...

Where is the screenshot of the ball out in a conclusive manner?

If you're going to tell me that you don't see motion blur in those 2 side shots, you've lost already. Again... Just because we haven't seen anything where the ball is in his hands at 0.0 doesn't mean it isn't in the footage we didn't see. Are you trying to imply you've seen the PAC 12 footage?


dio -

Already addressed that. I really think you guys read every 12th post.

 

[HotRack]

Good God, man we get it. You've posted the same ****ing tweets at least ten times, yet there's no PROOF that this Zapruder footage that ****ed CU exists! Shut the **** up, enjoy your gift win, go back to Tucson, and prepare to see ****Zona get their ass right now off the floor in Boulder.

 

[HotRack]

God damn auto correct on the new phone is pissing me off.

 

[JCatano]

Good God, man we get it. You've posted the same ****ing tweets at least ten times, yet there's no PROOF that this Zapruder footage that ****ed CU exists! Shut the **** up, enjoy your gift win, go back to Tucson, and prepare to see ****Zona get their ass right now off the floor in Boulder.

Junction asked for the proof, which I gave him over and over. Then... He asked again. I'll held his hand through it this time.

I don't think Arizona wins in Boulder. They always crap the bed 2-3 times a season, no matter the coach.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Yes we see the blur. Yes we see that it COULD be that his hand is on the ball. However the fact that the replay doesn't irrefutably that the ball was still on his hand, the call should have stood as called on the floor.

 

[JCatano]

Yes we see the blur. Yes we see that it COULD be that his hand is on the ball. However the fact that the replay doesn't irrefutably that the ball was still on his hand, the call should have stood as called on the floor.

Ad nauseam x infinity:

Nobody knows which footage caused them to make the final call. They didn't only have access to ESPN footage. They have their own that we don't see. That should be terribly clear by now. The replay we see on TV may or may not be the reason why the call was overturned.

 

[PhillyBuff]

I linear interpolated the fact that Chen's finger was 10 centimeters off of the ball between the .1 and 0 seconds on the clock.

 

[JCatano]

I linear interpolated the fact that Chen's finger was 10 centimeters off of the ball between the .1 and 0 seconds on the clock.

Show us the data points!

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Ad nauseam x infinity:

Nobody knows which footage caused them to make the final call. They didn't only have access to ESPN footage. They have their own that we don't see. That should be terribly clear by now. The replay we see on TV may or may not be the reason why the call was overturned.

while correct, the footage should match. Unless they have double the frame rates on their film it is likely exactly the same as seen on ESPN. Now if they only used the behind the shooter view I can understand why the call may have been made, however as they turn away from the monitor it is clear they are using the profile view of the shooter and the basket. The same view ESPN has been playing that shows it is off his hand before the backboard lit up. Buff fans have every reason to be upset in this loss. We know it isnt going to be reversed. We know it shouldn't have come down to one call. We know calls went both ways. We know that the team could have hit free throws and not been in that situation. We know that if you leave up to the officials you are likely going to lose. We get it.

However despite all the things we did wrong in the last 5 minutes of that game, we hit the shot to seal the victory. The refs decided we didn't. Buffnation will get over it and we will stop being so mad about it, but for now give us some space. This one really hurts for us. Would have been the biggest victory for us in 40 years.

I am looking forward to many of these types of games with calls going both ways between the Buffs and the Cats. It could develop into quite a rivalry if we let it. Its already off to a good start.

 

[PhillyBuff]

Show us the data points!

They start and end with Creatini's picture of the shot.

 

[JCatano]

Shld -

Yes, that was the final look, but one could suggest that it was just used as the factor along the entire line with what they saw in their footage. That could have been anything from "Can't see anything in this feed to change our mind" to "Screw it, I hate the Buffs. Wave it off". Never know.


Philly -

Your own boys even realize that .gif is iffy.


Nobody answered my question... Anyone have footage of the clock not starting right away after CU inbounded?

 

[tante]

Geez this zona fan is an idot.

Let me make this simple.

Most zona fans are cool. You are not. You are a gigantic little bitch who thinks they can convince an opposing fan base of something without offering any proof. You don't have video. The PAC12 or Arizona hasn't released any video. You wonder why they haven't?

So stop saying the same **** over and over and try to convince the rest of your Arizona buddies you aren't a gigantic twat.

 

[Deleted member 807]

More on the blur...

The blur is the result in the object moving at a velocity in excess of the video capture rate.

We know the trajectory of the ball. Hint: it was leaving SuperninChendo's hands en route to the basket.

The blur is proof that the ball is moving away from the shooter's hand during the window of time between 0.1 and 0.000000000~1.

There is no blur on the numbers of the official clock. This means the side of the ball closest to the basket and farther from Chen's hand did not happen at the 0.0 mark.

The blurry part near the hands is during the early period of 0.1.

More on the subject of hands...
The blur on the infamous 0.1 side shot could be the the hand of the Arizona defender. It could be the hand of Chen. In this case, the ESPN blur is the very definition of inconclusive.

Inconclusive = not irrefutable = ruling on the court stands.

A possible reason the officials haven't presented this mythical official angle on which the basket was revoked is because it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it should be revealed.

 

[dio]

I'll ask you, since the other person can't do it...

Where is the screenshot of the ball out in a conclusive manner?

If you're going to tell me that you don't see motion blur in those 2 side shots, you've lost already. Again... Just because we haven't seen anything where the ball is in his hands at 0.0 doesn't mean it isn't in the footage we didn't see. Are you trying to imply you've seen the PAC 12 footage?


dio -

Already addressed that. I really think you guys read every 12th post.

But your tweet says the refs do not use the TV feed - that is patently false, since we saw them using the TV feed

Lawyered

 

[JCatano]

tante -

"a hand signal noting a valid three is not the same as a downward signal signaling it counted.

that signal never happened last night; went right to the monitor for confirmation.

didnt count" - The "other" forum


I did not realize he didn't actually signal a made basket. No Arizona fans are cool. Have you seen the Arizona forums? Dukies.


Skidmark -

See above quote.

Blur... It could be from him bringing the ball up to start his release. He had to do it quickly. The first still shows the ball directly over the wrist and it's blurry; not out front. The arm starts getting blurry from the wrist down. Could have been a slight movement backwards to get release going... Could have been moving forward right after bringing it back to start release. The pixels get even more dicey when they are digital.


dio -

In the tweet, the truck guy says they have access to the TV feed if they want to use it.



Link related to 97's post:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1469040-video-evidence-instant-replay-intricacy-key-in-colorado-arizona-play-at-buzzer

 

[tante]

Well is anyone else convinced? No well me either. Seriously get a screenshot that shows 0.00 and the ball touching his hand and we will all concede. Hurry run along now, get your evidence.

 

[JCatano]

I'm still waiting for the one showing that the ball is out at 0.1, since you can't measure the time before 0.0 in the screens.

 

[HotRack]

Show us the data points!

Philly will do that as soon as your help produce the "official" video you class meeting is out there. PICTURES not tweets from a Tucson reporter using a UA source as "fact."

And I guarantee he can probably calculate the numbers faster than you can produce this "official" video.

 

[JCatano]

You have as much of a chance getting video from the PAC 12 as I do, Rack. It's nice you guys are using that as a crutch, though.

"They didn't show me the video, so it must not exist!"

Even though I've showed you that they use their own cameras, system, and production.

 

[HotRack]

How have you "showed" the video exists? And again, tweets from Tucson reporters don't count.

 

[tante]

I'm still waiting for the one showing that the ball is out at 0.1, since you can't measure the time before 0.0 in the screens.

So I take it you concede your point as you have no evidence. I have seen several pictures and gifts posted by buff fans to support their claims. You have nothing to back your empty postulation.

 

[89BUFF89]

Zzzzzz. The shot came from the grassy knoll and killed the Buffs and Chen should have been the hero and now isn't, even though a kid with marginal talent played out of his mind. Lets move on and kill ASU and then massacre AZ on Valentines day at the Keg.

 

[JCatano]

So I take it you concede your point as you have no evidence. I have seen several pictures and gifts posted by buff fans to support their claims. You have nothing to back your empty postulation.

That should be clear by now. It's not hard to understand that I initially said I think they called it correctly (70%), but cannot be 100% certain since the other footage wasn't shown. The full motion .gif from SB Nation has me 50/50.

Nobody has shown me any conclusive evidence that it was a good shot. Seems the officials had the same thought.


Rack -

There are tweets from 2 different people. A guy on the actual TV crew, and Bruce Pascoe per a UA official. Implying they aren't telling the truth is petty. Plus, I've linked the launch of the PAC 12 camera and production solutions they provide at every game.

 

[JCatano]

Zzzzzz. The shot came from the grassy knoll and killed the Buffs and Chen should have been the hero and now isn't, even though a kid with marginal talent played out of his mind. Lets move on and kill ASU and then massacre AZ on Valentines day at the Keg.

What are you talking about? He's still a hero. A hero with a sad face for the time being, but still... No idea why he hasn't always played like that. He went full-out Euro-style and tore it up.

 

[tante]

That should be clear by now. It's not hard to understand that I initially said I think they called it correctly (70%), but cannot be 100% certain since the other footage wasn't shown. The full motion .gif from SB Nation has me 50/50.

Nobody has shown me any conclusive evidence that it was a good shot. Seems the officials had the same thought.

1. At least you got to see our evidence. Let us know when you get any.

2. You have no way of knowing what the officials were thinking. They could have been thinking if zona could cover the spread in OT. Or if they get paid more if they work an OT game.

 

[JCatano]

1. At least you got to see our evidence. Let us know when you get any.

2. You have no way of knowing what the officials were thinking. They could have been thinking if zona could cover the spread in OT. Or if they get paid more if they work an OT game.

Does that answer #7, Orr?

So... Bachynski for a triple double tomorrow?

 

[tante]

Does that answer #7, Orr?

So... Bachynski for a triple double tomorrow?

And more dancing and no evidence. You truly are a lost cause. I bet you are too stupid to realize you have been truly outsmarted here.

 

[JCatano]

And more dancing and no evidence. You truly are a lost cause. I bet you are too stupid to realize you have been truly outsmarted here.

Do I need to tell you again that you have as much of a chance as I do with regard to getting the PAC 12 to send me video they use for their officials?

Are you one of the "If a tree falls in the woods, but nobody is there, it definitely doesn't make a sound" people?

You not being shown the video that ESPN has no access to doesn't mean it isn't there.