The officiating at the end of this game is why basketball can suck

[Deleted member 807]

What's a physics?

Do you need to include altitude and air conditioning, and does 30 FPS or more make a difference?

A little bit, a little bit and a lot.

The altitude and AC contribute to friction and drag experienced by the ball during it's trajectory, although the impacts are nominal when compared to speed of release, angle of launch and direction.

Making a basket is all about finesse and consistency. Accuracy suffers and the arc must flatten as the launch speed increases. ~30 FPS (about 18 mph) is key from three point range to keep that pretty 50-52 percent launch angle in tact. The ball will fall short with too little speed. The ball will sale with too much speed. How much force is necessary is determined by the distance from the goal, For example, when shooting a 2-foot shot, you only need a launch speed of approximately 10 miles per hour versus 18 mps from the charity stripe.

 

[FChairbanks]

A little bit, a little bit and a lot.

The altitude and AC contribute to friction and drag experienced by the ball during it's trajectory, although the impacts are nominal when compared to speed of release, angle of launch and direction.

Making a basket is all about finesse and consistency. Accuracy suffers and the arc must flatten as the launch speed increases. ~30 FPS (about 18 mph) is key from three point range to keep that pretty 50-52 percent launch angle in tact. The ball will fall short with too little speed. The ball will sale with too much speed. How much force is necessary is determined by the distance from the goal, For example, when shooting a 2-foot shot, you only need a launch speed of approximately 10 miles per hour versus 18 mps from the charity stripe.

given all that, i'm surprised chen even took the shot in the first place...

 

[drmike]

I have now read this entire stupid thread.

the shot was good.

jcatano you're a dick and I hate you.

I am with LDH. I tried to be objective ( and caught **** for it ) but it is cut and dry. The bucket is good and 30 pages of your BS does not change it. If you want to prove your point start with fans outside of CO who think we got screwed, because you will get nowhere here. I would not be surprised to see you at a later date arguing our point when the same call goes against you. You are a PITA homer period.

 

[Deleted member 807]

given all that, i'm surprised chen even took the shot in the first place...

Exactly. It was a miracle that Sabatino's parents met and conceived him in the first place. One fraction of a second might have been the difference between his very existence. The path Sabatino has taken from those first steps to that fateful last second buzzer beater was wrought with peril. A missed car wreck here, a missed heptavirus there, even one missed alarm clock was all that stood between Sabatino being the basketball phenomena with amazing hair that we know and love and some alternative fate.

The shot itself was a thing of beauty, filled with split second adjustments to body position, muscle motion, and billions of neurological and cellular chemical transactions conspiring to launch that orange orb towards a cold lifeless metallic rim. Sabatino's shot culminated in a sequence of events that have never happened before, and will never happen again exactly like what we witnessed on Friday night there in Tucson on that storied hardwood at that moment in time.

This precious mixture of evolution, physics, and emotion that was wrapped up and carried by that basketball was more than a shot. It was a life affirming symbol of human accomplishment that makes every man, woman, and child that witnessed the event swell with pride while embracing a connection with each other on an idealstic and life affirming level. It was a thing of rare beauty.

Some mouth breathing official with poor eyesight and even worse breath fumbled with a monitor and whizbang camera footage to draw a false conclusion. The wrong call was born to the adherence of craptastic rules and officials who deemed it necessary to negate the significance of Sabatino's breathtaking accomplishment on nothing more than trust. The official waived off the basket, sinking on our faith in the humanity of officials to act as an agent of fairness, virtue and glory. In its place fans harbor a disgust for slavelike adherence to a bureaucratic and unconscionable rule based decision process that echos of an Eichmann-like pursuit of the letter of the rule over the principle of doing what is good and right.

A little bit of basketball's soul died at that moment.

 

[FChairbanks]

Exactly. It was a miracle that Sabatino's parents met and conceived him in the first place. One fraction of a second might have been the difference between his very existence. The path Sabatino has taken from those first steps to that fateful last second buzzer beater was wrought with peril. A missed car wreck here, a missed heptavirus there, even one missed alarm clock was all that stood between Sabatino being the basketball phenomena with amazing hair that we know and love and some alternative fate.

The shot itself was a thing of beauty, filled with split second adjustments to body position, muscle motion, and billions of neurological and cellular chemical transactions conspiring to launch that orange orb towards a cold lifeless metallic rim. Sabatino's shot culminated in a sequence of events that have never happened before, and will never happen again exactly like what we witnessed on Friday night there in Tucson on that storied hardwood at that moment in time.

This precious mixture of evolution, physics, and emotion that was wrapped up and carried by that basketball was more than a shot. It was a life affirming symbol of human accomplishment that makes every man, woman, and child feel a connection with each other on a life affirming level. It was a thing of rare beauty.

Some mouth breathing official with poor eyesight and even worse breath fumbled with a souless monitor to draw a false conclusion and negate the significance of Sabatino's breathtaking shot. The official waived off the shot, sinking on our faith in humanity to act as an agent of fairness, virtue and glory.

A little bit of basketball's soul died at that moment.

dr. james naismith rolled over in his grave...

 

[Uncle Ken]

Junction -

But... It wasn't according to the "pros".

Orr -

You basically answered your own question. Neither side can come up with conclusive evidence using the ESPN footage. You may think a blurry still shot is conclusive, and that's fine. I don't think it is. So, it's not hard to conclude that the footage we didn't see from the XCOM camera was the deciding factor. Do I know that for a fact? No. It could be, though. The unknown is the meat of the issue.

You are a confused, and strange little person.

What's the standard? It's a serious question, what is the standard to determine the shot was off.

You seem to compare our two requests for specific images as equal. They are not. Mine represents the standard, yours does not, and permeates your entire flawed argument.

The standard is this:

The ball cannot be touching his hand after time expires.

That's it, and nothing more. It is precisely why I am requesting that image. And we know with frames per second for usable video, that we possess sufficient frames from a sufficient angle to determine that. Quit calling the ESPN footage inconclusive. It is conclusive. The ball is leaving his fingers at 00.1 (you seem to think that any suggestion that the ball might be touching at that point is damning but it's not). The first time the clock shows 00.0, the ball is clear. That is conclusive.

You, on the other hand, are requesting an image of the ball clear of his hands at 00.1. That is not the standard! It means nothing! But it cuts to the heart of your entirely flawed perception of this debate.

I'll say it again. The standard is that the ball can't be touching at 00.0. Nothing more. We have conclusive evidence that it was clear.

So I can confidently say that I disagree with your post that I have quoted.

And one other thing. You don't know what the **** "conjecture" means. You are basing your entire argument on possible video that might exist and have shown something different. That's conjecture. I've made up my mind with the conclusive evidence I've seen. See the difference?

You are the most wonderful little troll that has ever visited this board, I believe. Stick around.

 

[Junction]

You are the most wonderful little troll that has ever visited this board, I believe. Stick around.

Somewhere, The Walrus just cried a single tear of loneliness, knowing he has been forgotten.

 

[Deleted member 807]

The standard is to use 0.1 increments on the official clock, but make judgements on video equipment that uses 30 or 60 frames per second. Furthermore the standard expects officials to rule on the action that transpires between frames that viewers can see.

 

[JCatano]

Are you sure that's the standard when making that call?

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.

Kind of sounds like my thought, right..?

Anyway... Why do I need to come up with an image that I cannot produce, especially when you already know that I've said I am not completely convinced it was the correct call..? Is it because you know I can't personally show you an image of it, and that's the lone crutch? You're choosing to totally disregard the footage you have not seen and has been proven to exist. That's your choice. Tossing out the possibility of something being in that footage is epic denial, though. At least I still hold onto the possibility that the shot might have been good, although I don't think it was. An ASU fan would be happy with a 1% "maybe". You're all worked up over a 30%.

The officials made the call, and I mostly agree. *shrug*

By the way... Conjecture involves taking guesses based on what you see and/or hear. I explained why I don't think the sideview still-shot isn't conclusive... The ball looks to be directly over his wrist/forearm (actually very slightly in back of it). My "guess" is that he hasn't completely released the ball, because I think it would be out in front of his lower arm. That same "guess" is also why I'm not 100% sure the call was correct.

How long are you going to be mad about it? If you're going to be mad, save it for when Colorado's RPI has a good chance of taking a hit on Thursday. If Arizona plays like they have the last few games, Oregon could win by 20+. :thumbsup:

 

[JCatano]

Skid -

Get Chen into a Physics class. He'll score 15+ per game.

 

[jcatcher]

Skid -

Get Chen into a Physics class. He'll score 15+ per game.

Considering he's got a 3.7 GPA as a senior math major, it'd be more like 30 per game.

 

[JCatano]

Considering he's got a 3.7 GPA as a senior math major, it'd be more like 30 per game.

Even better.

I'm still trying to figure out how he isn't playing with similar effectiveness, in general. Maybe, it's just an assertiveness (or no green light) issue. No clue.

 

[LaserDeathHawk]

Eat monkey ****. The shot was good.

 

[Deleted member 807]

blah, blah, blah...Refs covering their asses...blah, blah, blah...biased Zona fan buying and attempting to sell the bull****.

FIFY.

JCat...has it occurred to you that the thread will continue as long as you keep pedaling your miopic world view while ignoring key points that have been made?

This is not the game thread, but a discussion of how the officiating at the end of the game makes basketball hard to like.

The point isn't whether or not the officials have some extra insight. The point is that the rules and the application of those rules are bad for basketball as they were administered on Friday night.

Your repetitive return to the same old perspective of the refs doing their job under the authority bestowed upon them with equipment only they can see is understood, and completely avoids the issue at hand; "does the officiating at the end of the game make basketball suck?"

The thread is not limited to the issue of whether or not the refs made the correct call or the absence of transparency in distributing media used to make a game altering call.

You are tone deaf to the arguments for rule enhancements in the area of transparency, the mass availability of irrefutable evidence, and the standard that judgements are made based on the ball being out of the hands at 0.1 instead of the competing standard that requires waiving the shot when the ball is actually seen in the hands at 0.0.

This isn't about being mad about the past or the outcome two days ago. Its about improvement for the sake of having a better basketball watching experience next year and into the future.

"Ref John Adams has ruled that the Allbuffs host message board is entitled to the last word in this thread and has the posters and the moderators with authority to make that happen."

Now scoot off and be an insufferable asshole in some other thread. Your love of the anal-retentive application of NCAA rule interpretation by the officials in the limited context of last friday's game is a paragon of pettiness. Your capacity to opperate with blinders on is off the charts.

 

[JCatano]

Pretty sure I was done talking about it, but you guys started up again.

The thread barely made it past page 1 in reference to the original topic with the exception of 1 or 2 other posts. It turned into a thread of what the screenshots showed, which is what I posted about with the .gif/2 screens, stated an opinion, and brought up a simple point:

Footage we didn't see that might have had information which could help the officials make a call, and how I mostly think they got it correct. Nothing more. Nothing less. That started a rage of negative rep hits with "**** you", "asshole", "go die", etc., etc. messages attached. That doesn't bother me, but I'm just making a point about how a simple relay of information and an opinion turns into some people raging all over the keyboard, because it conflicts with their perception. That's exactly what it snowballed into after the first person didn't agree with a comment and got upset.

Officials aren't always out to get teams, nor are they going to be scared of a crowd full of people pushing 60+ years old. Some refs just like to make the correct call as they see it using all of the information available, and yes... Some of that information isn't available to us.

Anyway... I hacked the XCOM database:

CU totally won. Be happy and have a Sunday Funday!

 

[Deleted member 807]

Pretty sure I was done talking about it, but you guys started up again.

The thread barely made it past page 1 in reference to the original topic with the exception of 1 or 2 other posts. It turned into a thread of what the screenshots showed, which is what I posted about with the .gif/2 screens, stated an opinion, and brought up a simple point:

Footage we didn't see that might have had information which could help the officials make a call, and how I mostly think they got it correct. Nothing more. Nothing less. That started a rage of negative rep hits with "**** you", "asshole", "go die", etc., etc. messages attached. That doesn't bother me, but I'm just making a point about how a simple relay of information and an opinion turns into some people raging all over the keyboard, because it conflicts with their perception. That's exactly what it snowballed into after the first person didn't agree with a comment and got upset.

Officials aren't always out to get teams, nor are they going to be scared of a crowd full of people pushing 60+ years old. Some refs just like to make the correct call as they see it using all of the information available, and yes... Some of that information isn't available to us.

Anyway... I hacked the XCOM database:

CU totally won. Be happy and have a Sunday Funday!

Your involvement in the discussion continues to be based on tired talking point of video nobody except the refs may or may not have seen. You have yet to declare a view on whether the replay rules and how they are applied are just right or ripe for the tweaks that have been mentioned.

More pix.
The 0.1

The 0.0

The blend - illustrating the difference between two video frames of 1/24th of a second. Another Allbuffs original. No monkey business.

 

[Chromeburn]

Anyway, this guys crappy little photoshop explanations aside. The ball was out, the side angle is a much better angle because the camera from the rear of the court is looking up at the release. Depending in the release of the ball and the arch it takes coming out it would be much harder to tell when it left his fingertips from the rear camera shot. It was a really bad call, and one that should not have been overturned based on that. They might want to increase the size of the monitor and the resolution of the video equipment if they aren't going to use ESPN's top of the line system. Or you could increase the quality of the refs, because these guys made mistakes all game. Pac refs are a joke.

 

[JCatano]

Your involvement in the discussion continues to be based on tired talking point of video nobody except the refs may or may not have seen. You have yet to declare a view on whether the replay rules and how they are applied are just right or ripe for the tweaks that have been mentioned.

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

You can't conveniently ignore that statement, especially when his experience on this type of matter is probably 10x more involved than all of the collective experience combined in this forum. All of the footage was seen by the officials:

"The system was operating and officials used all the information they had," UA athletic director Greg Byrne said.

"I know they used everything that was available," said Pac-12 spokesman David Hirsch, who detailed the system to the Star. "They look at all the video and find whatever's the best."

Look at the equipment the PAC-12 uses. Their field cameras are PMW-200's. Those run up to 30 FPS at 1080p and 60 FPS at 720p along with 1000 TVl, so they'd be running at least 30 and maybe all the way up to 60. They would also obviously match the camera and monitor specs in the best way possible to keep frequency loss at a minimum. There is no worry about the public user (us) and what the footage is being viewed on at home. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they run a cleaner feed than ESPN, since it's a closed production. The Tucson truck said 30 FPS was used for the ESPN replays. What exactly does that change?

I haven't even thought about their procedures and what I think of them. Does that matter? I piped in about the screenshots; not procedures. If you insist... Follow football procedures.

You aren't going to change my mind about the shot. I'm not going to change yours, and I haven't been trying to, anyway. One would think there's nothing wrong with that.

You keep talking about circles... Yeah. I'm getting kind of bored of screenshots. Aren't you? I thought this was exhausted yesterday. More photoshops, please.

 

[tante]

Are you finally ready to admit they originally called the shot good and overturned that call?

 

[Deleted member 807]

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

I haven't even thought about their procedures and what I think of them. Does that matter? I piped in about the screenshots; not procedures. If you insist... Follow football procedures.

You aren't going to change my mind about the shot. I'm not going to change yours, and I haven't been trying to, anyway. One would think there's nothing wrong with that.

You keep talking about circles... Yeah. I'm getting kind of bored of screenshots. Aren't you? I thought this was exhausted yesterday. More photoshops, please.[/FONT]

W00T! A breakthrough. We found agreement on multiple points.

1) Football rules are preferable; The ruling on the [court] stands unless there is irrefutable evidence to overturn the call.

2) The officials admit that the home viewer is not privy to imagery used by the P12 officials to determine the outcome of the game.

3) Agreement between us does not change the outcome of the game, nor should it.

4) Reasonable people can sometimes agree to disagree.


That said, I am gobsmacked that your confession took until post 498 to be revealed. While it does not change the outcome of the game, it does change the direction of the thread.

In that one post, you have gone from a mere messenger of quotes by officials to someone willing to answer an honest question and provide testimony of your own views and opinions. Thank you.

I readily recognize that the officials have no obligation to share evidence with the public. (We agree here).

I personally find the quotes from the officiating leadership that you have posted to be offensive. They rub me the wrong way, along the lines of "we're from the government and we are here to help."

It comes down to trust. I don't trust these officials to operate without adequate checks and balances. If they have the video screenshot at 30 or 60 FPS that conclusively shows that the ball did not get away before the official clock struck 0:0, then they should readily share it. This kind of transparency would defuse some of the nasty allegations of home cooking leveled against refs who are reacting in the heat of the moment to please the home croud. It would erase suspicions that the refs are embarrassed by video imagery in their possession that is either inconclusive or contrary to the call that was made. It would negate the opinion that the officials are being secretive to save face.

If there is a decision not to release the data, then the officials should make this easy on everyone and have a cut and dry standard. Use the views that the spectators have. If the ball is in the hands at 0.1 and out of the hands at 0.0, then the shot is good. This fractional period of time between publically available frames is unnessarily cumbersome and inconclusive.

In the CU-UofA game, the officials took a test drive with this new video technology without thinking everything through. The officials say they have irrefutable evidence. The viewing public apparently may not have a right to see it, but we are owed the courtesy and respect to review what the officials saw. That evidence can be provided in the hours or days that follow.

This is my view.

I am asking for your opinion again.Does JCatano agree that as early as next season (2013-2014), it would be good for basketball for the officials of the P12 to agree to be held to the standard of full transparency as I describe when using their state of the art video equipment to make a ruling on buzzer beaters?

If you disagree, then feel free to lecture me on the virtue of trust, or the marketing value caused by uncertainty, or the real world truth that referees are humans prone to error and need to keep this video private as a condition of retaining talent. Or just acknowledge that your job precludes you from saying anything. Or conceed that you don't care.

 

[JCatano]

tante -

If you'd go back and read the thread, you'll realize I had never thought otherwise. That's why I questioned what 97cats had said about the signals. You will also see that I linked, or at least quoted from, an article explaining how it doesn't matter what call is made on the floor. Basketball officials look at information available and call it as they see it.


Skid -


Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure what the breakthrough or confession is. The latter means I was hiding something, which I wasn't. I saw a link to this forum via another, saw all of the screenshots, and stated my view on the shot. That's pretty much it.

The first time I noticed you asking my opinion on the procedures came in recent posts. It seemed like you wouldn't be happy with an "I don't care", so I threw the football one out there. That one seems to make everyone in here happy, since it would mean a call can't be overturned without irrefutable evidence... Evidence everyone in here assumes the officials absolutely didn't see. It was also around 5 in the morning. Sue me.

Getting the call correct is all that matters. I don't think public viewing guarantees that. It may even create more pressure to sway a call.

I don't automatically distrust officials. That's the difference between us, I guess. When they called the phantom foul on Lyons after Booker(?) tripped over the floorboard, I never once thought anything funny was going on. Throw a video review into that foul, and it gets overturned, though.

 

[Deleted member 807]

@ JCatano
You know what a slippery slide or a primrose path is, right?

You are introducing a slippery slide argument as it relates to officiating outside of buzzer beaters.

Let's put every other call in the parking lot for now and focus only on that section of the rule book that pertains to buzzer beating shots taken at the end of regulation and overtime periods. I single this out because this is the area of the game where officials are particularly vulnerable to taking the outcome of the game away from the athletes.

Do you think trust and certainty would be built between fan and official if they tweaked the rules a little bit? The proposed tweak is to require disclosure of the official's high rate video of the final seconds through a media outlet following the game.

That is the question I would like you to answer. Don't feel pressure to answer how you think I want you to answer. Give it to me from your heart.

 

[Uncle Ken]

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

You mentioned this earlier, and it goes back to my standard, and the league's standard as well. If it has to be off before the end of regulation (your quote), then it's okay that the first time he sees the ball off the fingers is at 00.0, so long as he never sees it on the fingers at 00.0. It's an important distinction, and goes back to the time that fills those tenth-of-a-second intervals. So this quote means nothing to me (and is slightly concerning). As I've said all along, tell me when you see the ball touching fingers.

I'm not pestering you for that imagery--I know you don't have it. But when you're getting beaten up nationally, it's in the PAC 12's interest to show the imagery they had. I strongly suspect there's a reason they haven't. Because it's also in their best interest to be right, see? Now follow those incentives, and where does it get you?

You can't conveniently ignore that statement, especially when his experience on this type of matter is probably 10x more involved than all of the collective experience combined in this forum. All of the footage was seen by the officials:

"The system was operating and officials used all the information they had," UA athletic director Greg Byrne said.

"I know they used everything that was available," said Pac-12 spokesman David Hirsch, who detailed the system to the Star. "They look at all the video and find whatever's the best."

Look at the equipment the PAC-12 uses. Their field cameras are PMW-200's. Those run up to 30 FPS at 1080p and 60 FPS at 720p along with 1000 TVl, so they'd be running at least 30 and maybe all the way up to 60. They would also obviously match the camera and monitor specs in the best way possible to keep frequency loss at a minimum. There is no worry about the public user (us) and what the footage is being viewed on at home. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they run a cleaner feed than ESPN, since it's a closed production.

The Tucson truck said 30 FPS was used for the ESPN replays. What exactly does that change?

I haven't even thought about their procedures and what I think of them. Does that matter? I piped in about the screenshots; not procedures. If you insist... Follow football procedures.

You aren't going to change my mind about the shot. I'm not going to change yours, and I haven't been trying to, anyway. One would think there's nothing wrong with that.

You keep talking about circles... Yeah. I'm getting kind of bored of screenshots. Aren't you? I thought this was exhausted yesterday. More photoshops, please.

tante -

If you'd go back and read the thread, you'll realize I had never thought otherwise. That's why I questioned what 97cats had said about the signals. You will also see that I linked, or at least quoted from, an article explaining how it doesn't matter what call is made on the floor. Basketball officials look at information available and call it as they see it.


Skid -


Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure what the breakthrough or confession is. The latter means I was hiding something, which I wasn't. I saw a link to this forum via another, saw all of the screenshots, and stated my view on the shot. That's pretty much it.

The first time I noticed you asking my opinion on the procedures came in recent posts. It seemed like you wouldn't be happy with an "I don't care", so I threw the football one out there. That one seems to make everyone in here happy, since it would mean a call can't be overturned without irrefutable evidence... Evidence everyone in here assumes the officials absolutely didn't see. It was also around 5 in the morning. Sue me.

Getting the call correct is all that matters. I don't think public viewing guarantees that. It may even create more pressure to sway a call.

I don't automatically distrust officials. That's the difference between us, I guess. When they called the phantom foul on Lyons after Booker(?) tripped over the floorboard, I never once thought anything funny was going on. Throw a video review into that foul, and it gets overturned, though.

I think that officials want to get the calls correct, and don't have a team-driven agenda; on that you and I agree.

However, I don't think our officials had the courage to make the call with such a close shot, and preferred not to make the call. It wasn't about getting it right, it was about the fear of getting it wrong. It was easier to send it to overtime. Once they did, it became in the best interest of their leadership to support them. And they did.

However, "I didn't see the ball off the fingers until 0.00" doesn't cut it. It's not the standard. I know their the refs, but think really hard about their misdirection statement. Really hard. What are they really trying to say? I believe it's the truth, I just don't think it means anything--it's a red herring.

If they really wanted to exonerate themselves (and they do) they would produce a still of the ball touching the fingers after regulation. I sincerely believe they haven't shown that, because they can't (which also makes their statement make more sense, if you think about it). They only have images of the ball clear of the hand after 00.0.

 

[LaserDeathHawk]

Blah blah blah. Shot was good.

 

[Scotch]

Quit feeding the troll please.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Quit feeding the troll please.

I'm not feeding him, I'm helping him. He's slowly coming round.

Once he acknowledges that:

1. According to officials the ball must be shot before the end of regulation.

and...

2. The player may hold the ball throughout regulation.

Then he will realize two things:

The first is the only standard of proof that serves those two, combined conditions is evidence that the player was touching the ball after regulation. That's the only evidence that suffices.

The second, is that the officials statement that they didn't see the ball out of Chen's hand until 00.0 is essentially an admission that they made a mistake, and they're gracefully trying to cover it.

Just be patient Scotch. He's a little slow, but I think he'll get there. It's about helping someone, nothing more.

 

[Deleted member 807]

IMO the mods would have to lock this or bring out the ban stick or put me on ignore.

Otherwise this is a legit discussion on a topical subject. With over 32K views, it's one of the hotter topics that is generating traffic.

I agree it's trolling, but at least its somewhat civil.

 

[Goose]

Arizona game is over. The team couldn't move on, so it's time for the fans to show them how it's done.