UA & Pac-12 Basketball Thread

[ozzfloyd]

If Colorado made their free throws, they easily win this game.

If that Chen guy who had only made 2 3's in his career doesn't hit 7 of them, most with hands in face...

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm actually really surprised the Pac 12 refs guy already came out and said he reviewed the tape and agrees with the refs.

AS far as I know the rule is the same as the NFL rule, to overturn it has to be clear and it's clearly not. The behind the play angle makes it look really close, the side angle, the one showing the ESPN clock makes it look clearly like the ball is out of his hand and the redlight is NOT on.

On the UA Scout board this guy was going on and on about 0 on the clock game over and people kept posting the actual rule for him, that's the whole reason we have a red light.

Even Simon working the game saw the side angle and repeatedly said game over.
It's very hard for me to see that gif and determine when the ball is out and the light comes on, but much clearer from the side. I have to wonder are the refs looking at a different shot that we haven't seen? I know they saw the side angle because they were asking to see it when reviewing it.

Obviously Colorado missing 5 of 8 FT's down the last 1;45 killed them but I'm just really surprised the Pac 12 came out so quickly in support of the refs when there are pics all over that make it look like a bad call. I'd have been fine with them reviewing it and saying not enough to overturn the call.

Apparently the rule actually would allow them to change the outcome if they decided it was clearly a bad call because if the shot counts, game is over so in theory they could have reviewed it and overruled the refs, but of course that's never going to happen nobody wants to see the outcome of a game changed several hours after the game ends.

Just crazy, I have to assume they have a view we haven't seen that makes it look closer because from the side angle I can't find anybody, even UA fans, who doesn't think the shot should have counted.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm actually really surprised the Pac 12 refs guy already came out and said he reviewed the tape and agrees with the refs.

AS far as I know the rule is the same as the NFL rule, to overturn it has to be clear and it's clearly not. The behind the play angle makes it look really close, the side angle, the one showing the ESPN clock makes it look clearly like the ball is out of his hand and the redlight is NOT on.

On the UA Scout board this guy was going on and on about 0 on the clock game over and people kept posting the actual rule for him, that's the whole reason we have a red light.

Even Simon working the game saw the side angle and repeatedly said game over.
It's very hard for me to see that gif and determine when the ball is out and the light comes on, but much clearer from the side. I have to wonder are the refs looking at a different shot that we haven't seen? I know they saw the side angle because they were asking to see it when reviewing it.

Obviously Colorado missing 5 of 8 FT's down the last 1;45 killed them but I'm just really surprised the Pac 12 came out so quickly in support of the refs when there are pics all over that make it look like a bad call. I'd have been fine with them reviewing it and saying not enough to overturn the call.

Apparently the rule actually would allow them to change the outcome if they decided it was clearly a bad call because if the shot counts, game is over so in theory they could have reviewed it and overruled the refs, but of course that's never going to happen nobody wants to see the outcome of a game changed several hours after the game ends.

Just crazy, I have to assume they have a view we haven't seen that makes it look closer because from the side angle I can't find anybody, even UA fans, who doesn't think the shot should have counted.

I'm hoping that's the case but it looks like a bad call to me and the world. However, it was nowhere the worst call ever but you'd never know that watching ESPN. Why don't they go back several seconds to that absurd foul call when it clearly should have been our ball by turnover. They got a free throw out of that which would likely have changed the way we approached the final play.

BTW, they did show one angle where it looked like the ball might have still been on the fingertips. It wasn't as clear IMO as the shots that showed the ball already released but if the shot had not been ruled good on the court, I think it would have been enough evidence to justify not overruling the original call.

Steve

 

[ozzfloyd]

The side angle that shows ESPN's timer on the bottom right makes it look like a sure good shot, but the ESPN timer is not official, the time on the basket is. And when following that one it's pretty much a judgement call one way or another. One of the officials has stated that on one replay they watched Chen's fingers are clearly still in contact with the ball...

 

[Russ Smith]

The crazy thing is the rule is written so technically ignorant you can actually almost defend the refs.

Rob Dauster on NBCsports details it but the rule says if the clock has tenths of seconds and is visible, the ref should use the 0 not the red light. If it's not visible use the red light, if the call is not decisive, go with the original call.

This is so technically wrong it's insane. Maybe it's because I grew up with an optics engineer dad and we had LED clocks in the 70's at home but it's a complete misunderstanding of why you NEED the light.

Digital clocks with 1 tenth are showing .1, that doesn't mean there's 1 tenth of a second though it could be .13, .18 all of those will still display as .1. When it goes to 0 it could be 0.9, that's why you have the LED light to tell you when 0 is really 0.

But the way the rule is written they're actually saying on replay the game ends at .09 because as soon as the clock shows 0, if visible it's over. Whoever wrote that rule is clearly not understanding how a clock works.

Still even Dauster says theyr'e still wrong because there is no conclusive replay that proves it was late so by rule, go with original call.

 

[TJ]

There is another video feed that is only accessible by the officials. They don't use the ESPN feed. Would love to see it.

I found this on goazcats.com. You make the call....

You must be registered for see images

 

[ozzfloyd]

The NCAA head of officials also has come out and said the correct call was made.

 

[Russ Smith]

The side angle that shows ESPN's timer on the bottom right makes it look like a sure good shot, but the ESPN timer is not official, the time on the basket is. And when following that one it's pretty much a judgement call one way or another. One of the officials has stated that on one replay they watched Chen's fingers are clearly still in contact with the ball...

Right but it's because they're using the 0 not the light. I would bet the farm next year that rule is changed so that 2a in the rule no longer gives the 0 precedence over the light.

People think there's a "delay" between 0 and the light coming on, that's not a delay, that's the time between 1 tenth and actual 0. It's supposed to work like that which is why the light is there. Not giving the light priority is insane, it's how the clock works.

 

[Russ Smith]

There is another video feed that is only accessible by the officials. They don't use the ESPN feed. Would love to see it.

I found this on goazcats.com. You make the call....

You must be registered for see images

That's it you can't tell on either of those if he's touching the ball or not, you can only tell from the side.

Clearly the refs are saying they have a pic that proves it I suspect it's going to be controversial until they produce that pic and show everyone. Because right now everyone that has seen the pic from the side says the same thing, ballgame. From behind impossible to tell. I sure hope the refs are right and that this doesn't end up costing Colorado down the line.

 

[ozzfloyd]

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-bas...questionable-c

NCAA coordinator of officials John Adams told Sporting News by text on Thursday night that he had seen the replay and that the referees ruled correctly.

Adams said the referees, after signaling a made 3-pointer, had to review the shot by rule. The referees must examine whether the shot was released before the clock strikes 0.00, the red light illuminates and the horn sounds. The official clock is the one that is atop the goal.

“On my home TV and watching replay, I couldn’t see the ball off fingers until 00 on clock,” Adams wrote.

Pac-12 referees coordinator Ed Rush concurred with Adams in a statement provided by the conference office.

“Game officials reviewed video replays of the end of regulation in accordance with NCAA playing rules and determined the ball was still on the shooter’s fingertips when the official game clock on the floor expired,” Rush said. “Per conference protocol, the officials conducted a thorough review courtside and viewed multiple angles of the play before confirming the ruling.

 

[Russ Smith]

I guess now Greg Byrne came out and commented saying the refs viewed the replays "they had available" and the reporter hinted that the new replay system UA had might NOT have given the refs access to all the same angles the rest of us saw. They said the system was working and that they should have had 5 angles from ESPN plus several others but then they declined to explain what angles they actually had.

I am not surprised, you could tell by the comments Adams the PAc 12 ref guy made that they were basing the decision on the angle behind the shooter not from the side, it was obvious in his comment.

I bet we never know the truth but my guess is they for whatever resaon didn't have the side view, weren't sure if they were allowed to use ESPN's view and just went off the back view and that's why they disallowed the basket.

 

[carey]

I guess now Greg Byrne came out and commented saying the refs viewed the replays "they had available" and the reporter hinted that the new replay system UA had might NOT have given the refs access to all the same angles the rest of us saw. They said the system was working and that they should have had 5 angles from ESPN plus several others but then they declined to explain what angles they actually had.

I am not surprised, you could tell by the comments Adams the PAc 12 ref guy made that they were basing the decision on the angle behind the shooter not from the side, it was obvious in his comment.

I bet we never know the truth but my guess is they for whatever resaon didn't have the side view, weren't sure if they were allowed to use ESPN's view and just went off the back view and that's why they disallowed the basket.

So you're insinuating that UofA cheated.

 

[AzStevenCal]

A close game, late, against a very bad Utah team. If I were Sean Miller I'd go public on the Colorado game. Admit that Colorado outplayed us and deserved the win and encourage the conference to reverse the outcome. We all know they probably won't but it's worth the gesture. Get a little good Karma going, because right now, we look like a .500 team in conference, at best. I'd especially make this gesture if Utah manages to pull off this upset.

Steve

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Miller will have that point made when we get boat raced by Oregon next week.

This team needs a wake up call. The half court O is pathetic.

 

[carey]

Survived again.

 

[carey]

A close game, late, against a very bad Utah team. If I were Sean Miller I'd go public on the Colorado game. Admit that Colorado outplayed us and deserved the win and encourage the conference to reverse the outcome. We all know they probably won't but it's worth the gesture. Get a little good Karma going, because right now, we look like a .500 team in conference, at best. I'd especially make this gesture if Utah manages to pull off this upset.

Steve

Why?

 

[AzStevenCal]

Why?

Perception is reality. The nation has seen picture after picture that indicate the shot should have counted. Right now, we're painted as the evil ones so make a sacrificial offering and put it behind us.

Steve

 

[TJ]

A close game, late, against a very bad Utah team. If I were Sean Miller I'd go public on the Colorado game. Admit that Colorado outplayed us and deserved the win and encourage the conference to reverse the outcome. We all know they probably won't but it's worth the gesture. Get a little good Karma going, because right now, we look like a .500 team in conference, at best. I'd especially make this gesture if Utah manages to pull off this upset.

Steve

A reversal won't do anything psychologically for this team. Experiencing loss on the floor will.

We're due for a loss and it's coming against Oregon next week. Fortunately, a loss on the road against that team won't impact seeding for the tourney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ozzfloyd]

A close game, late, against a very bad Utah team. If I were Sean Miller I'd go public on the Colorado game. Admit that Colorado outplayed us and deserved the win and encourage the conference to reverse the outcome. We all know they probably won't but it's worth the gesture. Get a little good Karma going, because right now, we look like a .500 team in conference, at best. I'd especially make this gesture if Utah manages to pull off this upset.

Steve

Dumb post.

 

[Lefty]

I would be concerned if we were in the last week of February but it's the first week of January. A lot of time to get better. Also, I am happy that we are 14-0.

 

[TJ]

I would be concerned if we were in the last week of February but it's the first week of January. A lot of time to get better. Also, I am happy that we are 14-0.

Agree. This team isn't running the table this season. Better to lose in January and February than March or April. Just don't lose too much and **** up tourney seeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AzStevenCal]

Dumb post.

Have you been watching or listening to the national sports guys? We're getting blasted on Twitter, ESPN etc and I think a gesture such as I proposed would do wonders. We're not Duke, this won't get swept under the table. Let's see how many breaks we get from the refs the rest of this season if this is allowed to build, telecast after telecast. Acknowledging the error (as far as the world is concerned, anyway) while supporting the referee decision could help us down the road.

Besides, I think our team believes they should have lost that game and that right now they are playing under a cloud of guilt. We looked pitiful today. Maybe we're just looking ahead to our first conference road trip but who knows.

Steve

 

[TJ]

Have you been watching or listening to the national sports guys? We're getting blasted on Twitter, ESPN etc and I think a gesture such as I proposed would do wonders. We're not Duke, this won't get swept under the table. Let's see how many breaks we get from the refs the rest of this season if this is allowed to build, telecast after telecast. Acknowledging the error (as far as the world is concerned, anyway) while supporting the referee decision could help us down the road.

Besides, I think our team believes they should have lost that game and that right now they are playing under a cloud of guilt. We looked pitiful today. Maybe we're just looking ahead to our first conference road trip but who knows.

Steve

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. Your proposition serves to only take a win away from our team and give it to another PAC team. Nothing more, nothing less. It would not appease anyone, including the national guys.

I don't think this will mount a conspiracy of any sort by the NCAA or the referees. Besides, PAC refs are amongst the worst in the Nation as evidence by that call and the several other botched calls during that game.

The only people that will remember the reversal in 4 weeks will be UofA, CU, and ASU fans (because they seem to remember every questionable event in UA history). We play CU in Boulder on Valentine's Day. Poetic justice for them would be if they annihilated us in front of their home crowd (which because of the botched call, will be packed with CU fans [silver lining]).

 

[AzStevenCal]

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. Your proposition serves to only take a win away from our team and give it to another PAC team. Nothing more, nothing less. It would not appease anyone, including the national guys.

I don't think this will mount a conspiracy of any sort by the NCAA or the referees. Besides, PAC refs are amongst the worst in the Nation as evidence by that call and the several other botched calls during that game.

The only people that will remember the reversal in 4 weeks will be UofA, CU, and ASU fans (because they seem to remember every questionable event in UA history). We play CU in Boulder on Valentine's Day. Poetic justice for them would be if they annihilated us in front of their home crowd (which because of the botched call, will be packed with CU fans [silver lining]).

We'll see. I think you're wrong. I believe this will get mentioned often throughout the season just like our losses to E Tenn St, Santa Clara, Miami of Ohio etc were thrown back in our faces every March. There is a lot of negative backlash on the net and elsewhere and a comment from Sean would put an end to much of it.

I don't even think they'll have to reverse the outcome to quiet this outcry, if fact I don't think they will reverse it. It wasn't the worst call in the world, there were worse ones that went against us in that same game but the talking heads have turned it into something far beyond what it was.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

We'll see. I think you're wrong. I believe this will get mentioned often throughout the season just like our losses to E Tenn St, Santa Clara, Miami of Ohio etc were thrown back in our faces every March. There is a lot of negative backlash on the net and elsewhere and a comment from Sean would put an end to much of it.

I don't even think they'll have to reverse the outcome to quiet this outcry, if fact I don't think they will reverse it. It wasn't the worst call in the world, there were worse ones that went against us in that same game but the talking heads have turned it into something far beyond what it was.

Steve

Officially reversing the call/game would be the most useless thing anybody could do. First, it means every level of officials in the NCAA would have to admit they were horribly wrong. Next, what does "karma" have to do with anything? That's superstitious hogwash and I'm surprised you would use that as a reason for doing it. Who cares what the "talking heads" think? They weren't on the court, either as players or officials. Why does what they talk about make any difference in anything?

I think your disappointment in the Suns has negatively affected your point-of-view.