Guns Up

[twocoach]

It's not opinion. In NBA, HS, and International basketball, that's Texas Tech's ball. I truly don't think you've been around the sport competitively.

Another opnion, followed by an attempt to muddy the waters with some sort of prerequisite necessary to have eyeballs that can view whose hands touched the ball last. Did your competitive history in the sport 30 years ago bless you with some sort of magic vision that people who didnt play the game have? No.

The whole point of replay is to take the subjectivity out of it and get the call right to the best of the refs ability. Do you think the ball went off of the TT player or the Va. player? I think it went off TT.

Man I hope a cop never catches you doing 56 in a 55 cause you know. You're breaking the law and deserve a ticket. No subjectivity right? You're over the speed limit and deserve a ticket.

Look. The Virginia player knocked the ball out of of bounds before the replay and the Virginia player knocked the ball out of bounds after the replay. In a non end of game situation that doesn't even get looked at.

Right or wrong it's unfortunate that officiating decisions dictated the outcomes of two of the last three games.

So Kansas State.

[ousdahl]

so how do you conclude the side of the finger you can't see was the last to touch the ball?

[Mjl]

so how do you conclude the side of the finger you can't see was the last to touch the ball?

Doesn't matter. That's called out on the team that swiped at it 99.9% of the time the first 38 minutes. Game shouldn't be called differently just because it's the last two minutes.

[twocoach]

so how do you conclude the side of the finger you can't see was the last to touch the ball?

Doesn't matter. That's called out on the team that swiped at it 99.9% of the time the first 38 minutes. Game shouldn't be called differently just because it's the last two minutes.

They called it out on the team that swiped at it in this case as well. But since replay was available due to the time, they had the chance to see if their call was right and they felt they had compelling enough reason to determine that it wasn't so they corrected it.

All your "other 38 minutes" argument does is point out that they probably end up with the wrong result more often in the first 38 minutes than in the last 2 minutes.

[ousdahl]

ummm

"they felt they had compelling enough reason" still just doesn't sound as conclusive as, "they were conclusively able to overturn the call."

I think the 38 minutes argument is a good one. Don't let replay diminish the game on some existential level. Don't turn basketball into frame-by-frame forensic research. Keep basketball about basketball.

But my argument is, I just don't think there was anything there to conclusively overturn the call. It would be one thing if they could look at the replay and within a couple seconds see something that obviously changes the call. But they spent several minutes dissecting the thing over and over again. And even then, it wasn't ever like they seemed to conclude a thing. It's like they had a hunch that it went off the other guy instead. (hence my "off the side of the finger you can't see" argument.)

Cuz let's also not forget - it's not like the UVA guy was going for a steal. He was simply trying to knock the ball out of bounds. For 38 minutes - and in every other basketball game ever - the refs just call the play as knocked out of bounds. In such a moment of such a game with such stakes on the line, to use such an inconclusive instance of replay to conclude otherwise just seems like a travesty.

[ousdahl]

"congrats to the refs for winning the national championship"

[twocoach]

ummm

"they felt they had compelling enough reason" still just doesn't sound as conclusive as, "they were conclusively able to overturn the call."

I think the 38 minutes argument is a good one. Don't let replay diminish the game on some existential level. Don't turn basketball into frame-by-frame forensic research. Keep basketball about basketball.

But my argument is, I just don't think there was anything there to conclusively overturn the call. It would be one thing if they could look at the replay and within a couple seconds see something that obviously changes the call. But they spent several minutes dissecting the thing over and over again. And even then, it wasn't ever like they seemed to conclude a thing. It's like they had a hunch that it went off the other guy instead. (hence my "off the side of the finger you can't see" argument.)

Cuz let's also not forget - it's not like the UVA guy was going for a steal. He was simply trying to knock the ball out of bounds. For 38 minutes - and in every other basketball game ever - the refs just call the play as knocked out of bounds. In such a moment of such a game with such stakes on the line, to use such an inconclusive instance of replay to conclude otherwise just seems like a travesty.

You'd have to ask the refs who made the decision to overturn it for their official words to describe it. My chosen words are irrelevant.

Replay only "diminished" that call for those who wanted Texas Tech to win. It wasn't particularly controversial. It will get a few minutes of coverage but so far every media story about it I have seen has also felt it was the correct technical call.

Who gives a crap what his intentions are. Does intentions matter when a player is going for a rebound and it goes out of bounds? No. It just matters that the right team gets the ball.

And that wasn't "such an inconclusive instance". Not one person on here has tried to argue that it was the wrong call and that it looked like it was last touched by Virginia. Why? Because you can see it was not.

The travesty for Tech was them not being able to shoot at all to start the game and taking a bunch of terrible shots in OT, not that call.

[twocoach]

But my argument is, I just don't think there was anything there to conclusively overturn the call. It would be one thing if they could look at the replay and within a couple seconds see something that obviously changes the call. But they spent several minutes dissecting the thing over and over again. And even then, it wasn't ever like they seemed to conclude a thing. It's like they had a hunch that it went off the other guy instead. (hence my "off the side of the finger you can't see" argument.)

What are you basing all of this off of? Did they pan to the refs? Interview them? What action of theirs is "like they had a hunch"? It looked like any important review. They got together, looked at it and reversed their call. It didnt seem to take any longer than any other close call.

I didnt see them huddling together having any sort of disagreement. What are you basing your assessment on besides the fact that you didnt like the outcome?

[twocoach]

"congrats to the refs for winning the national championship"

Fans hoping the losing team would have won complaining about the refs screwing the team. There's a new one. You'd think that more people would start to see the pattern by now.

[Deleted User 75]

Glad I slept thru the game and this thread.

Holy cow. Twocoach doing his best illy impression. Responding like a jackass to EVERY. SINGLE. POST. and repeating himself. And firing off 3+ posts in a row really makes me laugh.

When I told you that you're fantasically oblivious this is what I was talking about. You try to gang up and make fun of people at the first chance you see, not realizing that when a select few of us aren't around for you to gang up on that you're actually the village idiot everyone tends to gang up on and make fun of.

Oh the irony.

[PhDhawk]

I've hated the way they review out of bounds plays since they started doing it. One guy clearly knocks the ball out of bounds by slapping it out of the second guy's hand, but the final frame of the replay shows that it was barely touching one fingertip of the second guy so they give the ball to the first guy's team. It's not the spirit of the rule and is not how it's called in every instance during most games.

That being said, this is how they've called these reviews for the entire time, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that they made this call in this instance. They've been reviewing plays like this for a long time.

Also, who really gives a shit? It was UVA vs TTU.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Replay only "diminished" that call for those who wanted Texas Tech to win.

The replay and overturn completely took the air out of the game. It was a really fun game and then it ended right then. Replay owned the ending of a 99% fantastic game.

It wasn't particularly controversial. It will get a few minutes of coverage

A bunch of columns and complaints from athletes to media members alike. Everything only gets a few minutes of coverage, that's not an indictment on whether replay is being correctly used or not.

[twocoach]

Replay only "diminished" that call for those who wanted Texas Tech to win.

The replay and overturn completely took the air out of the game. It was a really fun game and then it ended right then. Replay owned the ending of a 99% fantastic game.

It wasn't particularly controversial. It will get a few minutes of coverage

A bunch of columns and complaints from athletes to media members alike. Everything only gets a few minutes of coverage, that's not an indictment on whether replay is being correctly used or not.

It is not the job of the officials to call the game in a manner that creates the most exciting ending for fans. It is their job to try to determine who touched that ball last. They utilized the resources available to them, followed the guidelines given to them and appear to have come to the right conclusion.

I would assume most complaints about the call are similar to yours. "That didnt used to get changed back when I played"and "that ruined my enjoyment of a close game". Neither of which matters to the task the referees had at the time.

The current rules and replay system are in place. If you dont like the current rules and replay system, the NCAA D1 men's basketball rules committee members are Bernard Muir- AD of Stanford, Michael O'Brien- AD at Toledo, Mitch Barnhart- AD at Kentucky, Ctaig Thompson - Mountain West Conference Commissioner. Kevin White- AD at Duke, James Phillips- VP Athletics & Rec at Northwestern, Janet Cone- AD at UNC Asheville, Thomas. Urnett- Southland Conference Commissioner, Chris Reynolds- AD at Bradley and Bernadette McGlade- A10 Commissioner. I am sure their emails are listed publically online.

[twocoach]

I've hated the way they review out of bounds plays since they started doing it. One guy clearly knocks the ball out of bounds by slapping it out of the second guy's hand, but the final frame of the replay shows that it was barely touching one fingertip of the second guy so they give the ball to the first guy's team. It's not the spirit of the rule and is not how it's called in every instance during most games.

That being said, this is how they've called these reviews for the entire time, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that they made this call in this instance. They've been reviewing plays like this for a long time.

Also, who really gives a shit? It was UVA vs TTU.

So what is the "spirit of the rule"? Rule 7 Section 1 Article 1 states that "The LAST player to touch the ball before the ball goes out of bounds caused the ball to go out of bounds, provided that the ball is out of bounds because it touched something other than a player who is out of bounds." Period. It has no spirit to my knowledge.

Applying some magical unwritten rule of "it only went out of bounds off me because you touched it" isnt a good idea. Imagine if that unwritten rule was applied universally. Do we now have to define which body parts are allowed and which are not? If Virginia tips the ball and it hits the TT player's foot or leg, that's off Texas Tech and Virginia gets the ball but not if it goes off the Tech player's hand last? That's an improvement to the current situation?!?

[ousdahl]

What’s the rule about what constitutes “conclusive” evidence to overturn?

Can one conclude that the side of a finger that the replay camera couldn’t see was the last to touch the ball?

[Deleted User 89]

we all know the tech player touched the ball last

however, the call was made and as ousie (and others) have already said, the video replay doesn't provide indisputable evidence...it just doesn't. is the replay rule in bball different from the one in the nfl?

it just so happens that many (most?) of us wanted tech to win

and i agree, that if replay is going to be used to overturn a call like that, then it should also be used to charge a foul to Guy prior to the tip

[CrimsonNBlue]

Replay only "diminished" that call for those who wanted Texas Tech to win.

The replay and overturn completely took the air out of the game. It was a really fun game and then it ended right then. Replay owned the ending of a 99% fantastic game.

It wasn't particularly controversial. It will get a few minutes of coverage

A bunch of columns and complaints from athletes to media members alike. Everything only gets a few minutes of coverage, that's not an indictment on whether replay is being correctly used or not.

It is not the job of the officials to call the game in a manner that creates the most exciting ending for fans. It is their job to try to determine who touched that ball last. They utilized the resources available to them, followed the guidelines given to them and appear to have come to the right conclusion.

I would assume most complaints about the call are similar to yours. "That didnt used to get changed back when I played"and "that ruined my enjoyment of a close game". Neither of which matters to the task the referees had at the time.

The current rules and replay system are in place. If you dont like the current rules and replay system, the NCAA D1 men's basketball rules committee members are Bernard Muir- AD of Stanford, Michael O'Brien- AD at Toledo, Mitch Barnhart- AD at Kentucky, Ctaig Thompson - Mountain West Conference Commissioner. Kevin White- AD at Duke, James Phillips- VP Athletics & Rec at Northwestern, Janet Cone- AD at UNC Asheville, Thomas. Urnett- Southland Conference Commissioner, Chris Reynolds- AD at Bradley and Bernadette McGlade- A10 Commissioner. I am sure their emails are listed publically online.

You're all over the place now.

It's entirely arguable that the refs came to the right conclusion based on the video evidence. Of course my argument has been that we have the process absolutely wrong and that we're using technology in a way that it was never meant to be used.

Things should be adapted to make the game better. And, spare me your last paragraph. Is everyone supposed to reply to all of your sanctimonious posts with the NCAA, Bill Self and God's email addresses?

[ousdahl]

Trick question!

Bill Self is God.

[Deleted User 75]

Good lord twocoach must've missed my earlier post.

He's still going full retard.

And LOL @ copying and pasting the rules committee members.

[pdub]

I think it was 95% off Tech.
But I agree this isn't what the replay is used for.
It should be a human game with human 'mistakes' - and only if the human mistake is obvious should there be an overturn.

Wasn't obvious enough.