Melting down a little bit. 3 point game with 45 seconds to play.
Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)#7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
THIS ONES FOR JOHNWOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?
And the ball was well out of his hand. Assuming the game clock and the clock in the lower right are virtually in sync, it had to be out. How can you overturn this? You can't.
http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.n...89da6b71_o.gif
I understand they aren't in sync - I'm saying that it's logical to assume they were nearly in sync. There is no conclusive evidence that the ball was in his hands with 0.0 on the clock. By looking at both the gif and the jpg you can logically reason that he got the ball out of his hands.
If the standard is conclusive evidence to overturn a call - then the shot should have stood.
Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)#7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
THIS ONES FOR JOHNWOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?
I'll admit to not knowing the rule as to who determines the shot was good on the floor. And at this point. That's the issue.
And we don't have a PA system in college basketball to know this. Interestingly enough, someone standing right behind the bench started waving his hands no after clearly listening to the conversation about a minute before they actually determined it was no good.
So, the question is, does one referee putting his hands up constitute a good basket on the floor? Or can they confer, determine otherwise and then go to the monitor?
One referee put his hands up. The other two did not. If one putting his hands up makes it a good shot, and then they overturned it, I can agree.
However, if that does not conclusively make it a good shot, and they met, determined it was not good, and then went to the monitor, I disagree with you.
Ok, just for the sake of argument, assuming the refs did not technically make any ruling on the floor after the basket (even though they physically did, we'll ignore that for the sake of argument). The ruling should still favor the shooter in this instance after review because there is no evidence of the ball in his hand at 0.0. The only conclusive evidence is in his hand at 0.1 and out of his hand at 0.0.
But if we're being technical - the other two officials did not waive off the shot. One official (closest to the shooter) signaled that it was good:
Jimmy Dykes @JimmyDykesLive
Pg 37 in rulebook. When definitive information is unattainable with use of the monitor, the original call stands. CU got robbed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)