Thread: 2012-13 College Basketball Thread

Originally Posted by Buff

Buffs leading #3 U of Arizona by 10 with 7 minutes to play.

Got home at halftime. Colorado is playing lights out. Lets see if they can handle the inevitable run here from Arizona.

I'm torn here, because I've always rooted for the Cats because the Buffs just sucked so bad, and now there's finally something to root for here.

Melting down a little bit. 3 point game with 45 seconds to play.

Originally Posted by Buff

Melting down a little bit. 3 point game with 45 seconds to play.

Overtime.

That last play was really tight.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Overtime.

That last play was really tight.

No. It was clearly a good basket and a horseshit call by the refs. My lord that was bad.

Originally Posted by Buff

No. It was clearly a good basket and a horseshit call by the refs. My lord that was bad.

I'm not so sure of that.

Originally Posted by Buff

No. It was clearly a good basket and a horseshit call by the refs. My lord that was bad.

I thought it was good also Buff. They showed it from behind the player's back, and you could see that the ball just left his hands before the red light came on.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I'm not so sure of that.

At worst it was inconclusive and shouldn't have been overturned. But it wasn't inconclusive.

Originally Posted by Buff

At worst it was inconclusive and shouldn't have been overturned. But it wasn't inconclusive.

The actual game clock shows zero.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

The actual game clock shows zero.

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

Originally Posted by Buff

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

The game clock and the clock on TV weren't in sync. Look at the picture you posted. And the GIF isn't conclusive either it shows the ball on his fingers with .1 and the ball out of his hands at 0

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

The game clock and the clock on TV weren't in sync. Look at the picture you posted. And the GIF isn't conclusive either it shows the ball on his fingers with .1 and the ball out of his hands at 0

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.

Originally Posted by Buff

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.

I think the problem is that they did not call it either way until they reviewed it.

Originally Posted by Buff

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

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

Originally Posted by Buff

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:

We still don't know what the original call was. And I don't know the rule well enough to know when the "official" "on the court" ruling is made.