Armchair Refs: Your Opinion on Two Plays? (Villanova Game)

[Centerstream]

All calls are subjective, right?

 

[Forego]

I know on my post above that the refs can call a technical after the game is over, people have said until they leave the court, until they declare it over, something. But I really dislike them going back to review a 3 or 5 minute old call, especially late in the game.

Apparently the make similar calls in the NFL. Did you happen to watch the Chiefs-Bengals game last night? The refs called a “do-over”, you know like when we kids. No harm done though. The Chiefs ended up punting on fifth down.

 

[Skeets]

This fourth and last frame shows the ball has clearly left Nika's hand and the shot clock has expired.

View attachment 83670



Based on the data above (again we don't know what other video the refs had) I don't know how you overrule the call made in the game.

Ahh, your fourth frame still doesn't show the lights going off on the backboard. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't those lights are electronically controlled by the shot clock, not human intervention. I was at the XL and didn't have any opportunity to review. I thought, in real time, it was before the shot clock expired. But after the refs reviewed it, I accepted it was late. After all, how could they reverse a call and get it wrong?

FYI, there was another clock issue during the game (messed up shot clock and game clock), maybe clock issues came into play?

String up that clock guy or make him clean the toilets.

 

[Biff]

I definitely agree with your last sentence.

I assume that the shot clock that you are watching is the one in the upper right portion of the screen, above and slightly to the left of the "CBS Sports" logo. In Frame 3, that clock has an unilluminated border, but in Frame 4, it is illuminated. However, the border of the backboard is not illuminated even in Frame 4. Does that only light up at the end of a quarter, or does it also light up at the end of the shot clock? If the latter, I don't understand why the shot clock in the upper right could be lit while the backboard border is dark.

Ahh, your fourth frame still doesn't show the lights going off on the backboard. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't those lights are electronically controlled by the shot clock, not human intervention. I was at the XL and didn't have any opportunity to review. I thought, in real time, it was before the shot clock expired. But after the refs reviewed it, I accepted it was late. After all, how could they reverse a call and get it wrong?

The lights surrounding the backboard only go on as time expires in a quarter. They have nothing to do with the shot clock.

 

[mudblood]

When I re-watched the UConn game after watching it live, there were two plays in particular where I thought that the calls were at least questionable. One of these favored UConn and the other favored Villanova.

1. At 1:42 of the second quarter, Nika made a driving layup (a "finger roll") at the end of the shot clock, which was initially allowed but which was subsequently disallowed as having failed to beat the shot clock. That resulted in the halftime score being changed from 35-30 in favor of UConn to 33-30. I have now watched the replay three or four times, and every time it looks to me as if the ball was out of her fingertips with 1 second left on the shot clock. I can understand getting this wrong in real time, but if the referees made a point to review the video later, I can't see how their view of it could be so different from mine. Do any of you have a clue as to why this field goal was disallowed?
2. At 3:48 of the fourth quarter, Aubrey drove to the basket and made contact with Lucy Olsen, and referee Bob Danaher called a blocking foul. That was Olsen's 4th foul, but it would have been Aubrey's 5th if he had called it a charge on her. This was a crucial play in the game, since the score was tied 52-52 and the call gave Aubrey a chance for a 3-point play. Olsen was clearly out of the restricted area and was not moving her feet at the point of contact. One could argue that she was moving her torso into Aubrey (both forward and to her left), but that is questionable. You could also argue that she did not plant her feet until Aubrey was into her shooting motion, but I couldn't verify that in several replays. I'm pretty sure that Joseph Vaczily (the ref in the Tennessee game) would have called a charge on that play, since he has a "high charge" strike zone on such plays. Do any of you have an insight into why a block was the correct call in this case, if in fact it was?

Just thought I would try to provoke some good discussions about our good friends the referees.

The shot clock on the CBSSN ticker tape at the bottom was a second or so behind the official clock. See the attached screenshot which shows the official clock behind the basket at zero with the red outline lit up while the clock at the bottom still shows 1 second left.

 

[my2cents]

There were numerous plays where our players arms were hit during shots, especially against AE and Lou. It was the worst officiated game I have ever seen.

 

[Redux]

This fourth and last frame shows the ball has clearly left Nika's hand and the shot clock has expired

There is clearly NOT evidence to over-rule a call on the floor (I'm assuming the rules about over-ruling clock calls are the same as any other call: clear evidence).

I think you could make a case that in frame #3 her hand is still in contact with the ball. It's not a great case and I certainly wouldn't call it conclusive but at least it's close.

In frame #4 the ball is gone, not close. So look at the sequence of #2,3 and 4 and you can easily interpolate (assuming your frames are of equal interval - about 1/25 of a second I'd guess) exactly where the ball would be halfway between frames 3 and 4. Clearly out of her hand. Interpolate from that, backward: STILL out of her hand. We're now in the neighborhood of 1/100 of a second and it's unreasonable to expect human refs to make those kinds of judgements. So you don't make those judgements on a monitor: the floor call stands.

Now you could object that "interpolate" is not evidence. Yet that's exactly what they had to do to make an incorrect over-rule decision, since no matter what equipment they had or resolution of the monitor, no single frame (or moment if their sources are cruder than frame-by-frame) was conclusive. There is zero evidence that her hand was on the ball when the clock ran out.

I can't believe in another game of a hundred or so memorable moments, including Nika sinking another key three, I'm still thinking about this call. I assume you folks all know that fan is short for fanatic.

 

[Zorro]

On two occasions, Maddy, while shooting, jumped into a Husky defender who was standing motionless with arms that were up and stayed up. Both times she drew fouls. What am I missing here? One, as I recall, was against Lou and the other Aubrey.

 

[topogigio]

When they announced the points were negated at halftime, I was incredulous. The network never showed the replay so there was nothing to confirm the shot was after the clock expired. I played the replay ad nauseum, and for the life of me, I don't see it. The ball was clearly out of Nika's hand before the buzzer, before the shot clock expired, plus no red light on the backboard. Given that the same refs needed another five minutes to review the ball out of bounds under Villanova's basket in the closing minute of the game, in which a blind man can see that a Villanova player hit it out, I question their competence!

 

[Skeets]

The shot clock on the CBSSN ticker tape at the bottom was a second or so behind the official clock. See the attached screenshot which shows the official clock behind the basket at zero with the red outline lit up while the clock at the bottom still shows 1 second left. View attachment 83673

I'm not disputing that there were all kinds of issues with the clocks. I thought, based on everything I was paying attention to in real time, that the shot was good.

@Biff, ok, I thought the backboard lights up with the end of the shot clock, but maybe not. Certainly the horn sounds at the expiration of the shot clock. I didn't hear that either before the ball left Nika's hands. I guess that doesn't mean the shot clock was working correctly. Like I said, there were clock issues...

 

[stamfordhusky]

Apparently the make similar calls in the NFL. Did you happen to watch the Chiefs-Bengals game last night? The refs called a “do-over”, you know like when we kids. No harm done though. The Chiefs ended up punting on fifth down.

That’s a bit misleading. On the play in question, the clock was improperly running and the referee clearly stepped in to try to stop the play before the ball was snapped. As soon as he did this, by rule the play is dead and anything that happens after that does not count. What they did was exactly right.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

The refs should be given two minutes max to review a call. If it takes longer, it suggests that irrefutable evidence is approaching NIL or very slim. Move on. These calls? Aubrey's call could have been a no call, but I saw these touch calls going both ways. Not a fan of them. Nika's shot? Not sure.

 

[stamfordhusky]

On two occasions, Maddy, while shooting, jumped into a Husky defender who was standing motionless with arms that were up and stayed up. Both times she drew fouls. What am I missing here? One, as I recall, was against Lou and the other Aubrey.

I suggest you look at these plays again. I looked at both several times and in both cases, the UConn defender had her arms extended at perhaps a 30 degree angle. Thus when there was contact, it was a clear foul.

In many of these fouls, the defender , after the foul call, stands with her arms straight up to try to convince the refs that they were in that position when she fouled. However, that is very rarely the case.

 

[HuskyNan]

Is this a foul?

 

[Bone Dog]

You could also argue that she did not plant her feet until Aubrey was into her shooting motion,

This is how it looked to me. Aubrey was already committed to her leap when Olsen set her feet. She’d already picked up the ball and taken her final step before leaping for the rim.

It also seemed like Olsen was not square to the play, though this is not necessary to get a charge. But it is often indicative of a late slide into position.

 

[Bigboote]

I was gonna say the same thing. If it’s conclusive, it shouldn’t take long.