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

[JCatano]

Which ASU board does my twin libidonous extinct reptile frequent?

This weekend is better than most to browse some ASU fandumb.

Are links to other forums allowed in here, or does it need to be a PM?

 

[Buffnik]

Are links to other forums allowed in here, or does it need to be a PM?

You can link other forums.

We want to see more interplay between our board and the other Pac-12 fan boards (especially the non corporate ones). The more we drive traffic back and forth the better it is for our Pac-12 internet community. Good for the fans and help increase ad rates a bit for all of us. More resources means better content, so it's a good loop all around.

 

[DBT]

I think the officials were feeling like CU should not have won with a last second shot and that it should be decided in OT. Maybe subliminally, but I think that skewed their decision making process.

 

[JCatano]

You can link other forums.

We want to see more interplay between our board and the other Pac-12 fan boards (especially the non corporate ones). The more we drive traffic back and forth the better it is for our Pac-12 internet community. Good for the fans and help increase ad rates a bit for all of us. More resources means better content, so it's a good loop all around.

Sounds good.

http://arizonastate.scout.com/

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=43 (Direct to forum)

 

[JCatano]

I think the officials were feeling like CU should not have won with a last second shot and that it should be decided in OT. Maybe subliminally, but I think that skewed their decision making process.

Lute gave them the eye. Saw it on the XCOM cam.

 

[Junction]

You basically answered your own question. Neither side can come up with conclusive evidence using the ESPN footage. You may think a blurry still shot is conclusive, and that's fine. I don't think it is. So, it's not hard to conclude that the footage we didn't see from the XCOM camera was the deciding factor. Do I know that for a fact? No. It could be, though. The unknown is the meat of the issue.

But, since the shot was called good on the court, the lack of conclusive evidence would mean a CU win. That's why the burden is on showing that the ball was still in Chen's hand at 0.0, You can conclude that a single XCOM cam (or, through some miracle, the scoreboard cam) produced evidence that an ideally located ESPiN cam did not, but I think most of us are inclined to conclude that this hypothetical camera shot is far from a certainty. And if that camera did not capture the magic footage, CU got jobbed. It's really that simple...

 

[DBT]

Lute gave them the eye. Saw it on the XCOM cam.

Yeah. I saw that too.

 

[Buffnik]

Same crew is working the Furd-UCLA game. Awful crew. UCLA was getting every call until about 7 minutes left. Then, Dawkins got on their cases so bad that they T'd him up. From that point on, the refs were so influenced by the pressure Dawkins put on them that they blatantly called the game Stanford's way for the next 5 minutes. UCLA fans were booing on just about every possession until the end of the game. Bruins players were getting murdered without foul calls and Furd was getting every bump, flop and hand check called for them after all that was let go the entire game previous to the technical.

UCLA hangs on to win 68-60.

This officiating crew is horrible.

P.S. Bill Walton complimenting Arizona about how great they've been at the end of games. "The comeback against Florida. The comeback against San Diego State. The comeback [pause] albeit seriously aided [pause] against Colorado."

 

[JCatano]

But, since the shot was called good on the court, the lack of conclusive evidence would mean a CU win. That's why the burden is on showing that the ball was still in Chen's hand at 0.0, You can conclude that a single XCOM cam (or, through some miracle, the scoreboard cam) produced evidence that an ideally located ESPiN cam did not, but I think most of us are inclined to conclude that this hypothetical camera shot is far from a certainty. And if that camera did not capture the magic footage, CU got jobbed. It's really that simple...

From what I'm being told, the shot was not counted as good (even though I saw both his arms go up).

"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"

He raised both hands. That is the signal for a made three. Is there something added onto the signal for a shot as time expires?

"at the end of games in that situation there is a 'point' to the scorers table that indicates timing made before the buzzer.

waive off too when expiring

watch again, in this instance, no signal either way, and the officials head right to the scorers table to look at the monitor.

jmnsho"

The person replying to me knows basketball, and has some sort of in with the Athletic Department and coaching staff it seems. Not sure if he's relaying what he heard or just saying it. You can see the thread on GoAZcats: Best article I've seen on ''The buzzer shot''

 

[Junction]

Well, the call is what it is. I won't argue with Sean Miller about one thing, though...

"We've moved on," UA coach Sean Miller said Friday. "We know we were very, very fortunate to win that game. It's very obvious that Colorado was the better team throughout."

So, just like the Pac-12 tourney.... :gobuffs:

 

[Buffnik]

Junc,

Going back to last year and Miller's comments after we beat them for the Pac-12 title, he's a pretty no-nonsense guy who is quick to give credit while showing class.

It's going to be interesting if this develops into a rivalry. The coaches are pretty similar. Very intense and competitive old school guys. I think they respect each other. The fans seem to get along too. I could see this turning into something heated between us without there being hatred. Much different than we're used to with Nebraska and CSU.

 

[tante]

Everything I have seen or read said they called the shot good and then overturned. I haven't read any zona basketball forums so I don't have their bias.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Junction is on to something with the frame rate.

A basketball has a diameter of 9 inches and a weight of 20-22 ounces.

The three point line in college is a distance of 20 feet 9 inches from the basket. Based on various physics calculations considering the arc, distance and air friction, a basketball needs to have an initial travel speed of ~300 inches per second or 30 inches (2'6") per 0.1 seconds in order for the ball to have sufficient velocity to travel to the hoop. In simple terms, a departing basketball travels the length of an arm in 0.1 seconds. It travels the length of a 1 inch fingertip in 1/300th of a second.

The basis of JCatano's uncertainty is that this frame is taken between 0:000 and 0:0299, with the tips of the shooter's fingers on the ball as the clock reaches the end of regulation. The more probable view is that the shot is taken between 0:03 and 0:199. By my math, I have 97% certainty that the shot is good.

This now famous internet shot with the blur that shows 0.1 on the clock can be used to help bring this home. If the ball hasn't completely departed Sabatino's hand, the blur is enough to lead to the conclusion that the ball is touching nothing more than the fingertip, the last 1 inch of Chen's body. If it is on the finger, (and given the ball blur, that is an uncertain assumption), then the ball will exit the fingertip within the next three hundredth of a second, or 3 percent of the time in which the official clock reads 0.1.

All is needed is the prior frame and the next frame to extrapolate whether or not we think Sabatino has 4 inch fingers or 30 inch fingers to explain the pixal blur.

If we think each frame represents a 24 frame per second frame rate (12.5 inches per frame), we can make a pretty good analyis of the probability that the ball is or isn't out of his hands.

Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/optimizing-a-basketball-shot/

 

[Junction]

Everything I have seen or read said they called the shot good and then overturned. I haven't read any zona basketball forums so I don't have their bias.

I was reading a couple articles this afternoon saying that NCAA hoops doesn't actually have the same standard as other instant replay. Instead of requiring incontrovertible evidence to overturn the ruling on the court, they actually use replay to make the call. So what they called on the floor may actually be kind of irrelevant. Except, if the replays give them no basis for a ruling, they're supposed to revert to the call on the court (if there was one).

So we're pretty much back to whether there is a shot out there that gave them some basis for making a call...

 

[Deleted member 807]

I was reading a couple articles this afternoon saying that NCAA hoops doesn't actually have the same standard as other instant replay. Instead of requiring incontrovertible evidence to overturn the ruling on the court, they actually use replay to make the call. So what they called on the floor may actually be kind of irrelevant. Except, if the replays give them no basis for a ruling, they're supposed to revert to the call on the court (if there was one).

So we're pretty much back to whether there is a shot out there that gave them some basis for making a call...

Tad says to abolish the replay.
I'm leaning towards the NFL model that is the American sports fan standard. 1) Officials make a ruling. 2) That ruling can be overtured or affirmed with irrefutable evidence. It can be called the Sabatino Chen ammendment.

The current setup lacks a check and balance, causing ****storms like this one.

 

[DBT]

I was reading a couple articles this afternoon saying that NCAA hoops doesn't actually have the same standard as other instant replay. Instead of requiring incontrovertible evidence to overturn the ruling on the court, they actually use replay to make the call. So what they called on the floor may actually be kind of irrelevant. Except, if the replays give them no basis for a ruling, they're supposed to revert to the call on the court (if there was one).

So we're pretty much back to whether there is a shot out there that gave them some basis for making a call...

The official behind the shot called it good.

 

[Deleted member 807]

The official behind the shot called it good.

Our UofA friend sez the official was signalling the three by raising the arms, but not counting the points with the gesture of dropping the arm and pointing down.

 

[Junction]

Our UofA friend sez the official was signalling the three by raising the arms, but not counting the points with the gesture of dropping the arm and pointing down.

I thought they usually held up 3 fingers to signal the three point attempt, then raised their arms to call it good? But I could be wrong...

 

[JCatano]

Our UofA friend sez the official was signalling the three by raising the arms, but not counting the points with the gesture of dropping the arm and pointing down.

I edited that post after sending it. Looked it up, and no downward motion is needed.

I guess I'm not understanding what 97cats (quoted) is talking about.

And... Arizona is trying really hard to use one of their 2-3 "crap the bed" games. Never been a fan of Miller's offense. Seems very stagnate, and it will cost them as it has the past 3 years at times.

 

[DBT]

Anyway, none of this matters anymore. We lost. There is no such thing as bad publicity. We need to validate the perception that "Colorado was screwed" by winning. If we lay an egg tomorrow, our showing against UA will be considered a fluke.

 

[Deleted member 807]

I edited that post after sending it. Looked it up, and no downward motion is needed.

I guess I'm not understanding what 97cats (quoted) is talking about.

And... Arizona is trying really hard to use one of their 2-3 "crap the bed" games. Never been a fan of Miller's offense. Seems very stagnate, and it will cost them as it has the past 3 years at times.

What is your take on my physics based analysis in post #463?

 

[JCatano]

What's a physics?

Do you need to include altitude and air conditioning, and does 30 FPS or more make a difference?

 

[LaserDeathHawk]

I have now read this entire stupid thread.

the shot was good.

jcatano you're a dick and I hate you.

 

[DBT]

What's a physics?

Do you need to include altitude and air conditioning, and does 30 FPS or more make a difference?

Skiddy's physics is wrong. The ball hit a foot above the rim. Therefore, the ball was travelling at a rate of 325 ~ inches per second or 32.5 inches in 0.1 seconds. So the ball was actually 2.5 inches further away than Skiddy's calc. Oh, and he was a good 12" beyond the arc, further increasing how far the ball traveled in that 0.1 seconds. BAM!!!

 

[JCatano]

*Edit* Post fail.

 

[JCatano]

Laser -

Verne Harris just told me that the sentiment is echoed back to you (CU, in general)! Get ready for tomorrow. Lute knows those refs, too.

Oops. I'll have a double. Sorry.

 

[Buffnik]

[video=youtube;WEzBeP6pRoY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzBeP6pRoY[/video]

 

[DBT]

Laser -

Verne Harris just told me that the sentiment is echoed back to you (CU, in general)! Get ready for tomorrow. Lute knows those refs, too.

Oops. I'll have a double. Sorry.

According to the times of your posts, 5:23 and 5:24, it took you precisely 1 minute between posts. Since Allbuffs does not allow a second post within 30 seconds, it is apparent that you did not get the double post off in time for it to be considered a "double post." Sorry.

 

[JCatano]

Yet, it still shows as a double post. Thanks, Verne and XCOM!

 

[PhillyBuff]

Our UofA friend sez the official was signalling the three by raising the arms, but not counting the points with the gesture of dropping the arm and pointing down.

Yeah.....

Thats Aussie rules Football.... You gotta force your hand down.....