AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
The officiating at the end of this game is why basketball can suck
- Thread starter dio
- Start date
- Status
JCatano
New Member
Quote the "uber confidence". 70% is barely a good FT shooter.
My entire point is what you've missed. You guys are assuming the ESPN footage is the end-all video to base the decision on. You guys are assuming the PAC 12 footage shows nothing different than the ESPN feed even though there are multiple camera towers and floor space to set up at. With all of that, you are 100% confident that the shot is off. That 100% confidence is without seeing all of the evidence and showing some blurry screens with 0.0 on the clock.
We have sufficient evidence from the existing frame-by-frame video to show the ball was away at 0.00.
Look at your bolded. It's a 10th of a second clock, see. It's okay if it's in his hand at 0.1. It's not okay at 0.00. Something happened in between, yes. The ball left his hand.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. You seriously don't understand the relationship between time and clocks. You're missing at least one dimension from your reality, and I suspect you might be missing more.
Wait a minute. You haven't even managed to produce a single quote that actually says that the Pac 12 is producing video, but now you know how many cameras they're using?
You might want to understand the rules first
Not to mention the contact sensors that may have been surgically implanted in the players fingertips
Oh for Christ's sake. There is time between 0.1 and 0.00. But it's smaller than the clock captures, so if you can't capture a frame with the ball in Chen's hand at 0.00, then for the instruments we use to measure time in the game, he got the shot off.
Nothing else matters, but the official game clock. 10th of seconds is what they're using. It has to be good enough.
Produce a frame which shows the ball in Chen's hand with 0.00 and I will agree that he didn't get the shot off.
You are searching for a standard that exceeds the official tools we use to measure these things. That should probably tell you something...
Atleast our arguments have lowered your "sureness" considerably.....
JCatano
New Member
Orr -
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure time doesn't warp directly from 0.1 to 0.0... There is a lapse in that .gif, and nobody has any idea if the PAC 12 system is running more than the standard 30 FPS that truck crews use.
Junction -
I have 4-5 times.
Creatini -
Yes, the ball has to be away before time expires. The sideview doesn't show that in a conclusive manner. The .gif doesn't, either. Read my earlier posts. I've already said that whatever they looked at, that we weren't able to view, may have shown the evidence to overturn.
Philly -
Yeah, I know. 70% to 70% is a huge drop.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure time doesn't warp directly from 0.1 to 0.0... There is a lapse in that .gif, and nobody has any idea if the PAC 12 system is running more than the standard 30 FPS that truck crews use.
Junction -
I have 4-5 times.
Creatini -
Yes, the ball has to be away before time expires. The sideview doesn't show that in a conclusive manner. The .gif doesn't, either. Read my earlier posts. I've already said that whatever they looked at, that we weren't able to view, may have shown the evidence to overturn.
Philly -
Yeah, I know. 70% to 70% is a huge drop.
Read my post again. I recognize time doesn't warp between the two--except on the official clock which measures tenths of seconds.
The OFFICIAL clock doesn't measure higher than tenths of seconds, so arguing that something magical happened between those increments is pointless. The ball has to be gone when the clock shows 0.00. It was. That's the standard.
JCatano
New Member
You don't need a special tool. You look at full motion video, which the officials obviously use. They aren't looking at screenshots with time lapses.
Asking for that exact screen is BS, since you know nobody but the PAC 12 has access to the footage of that system. If you haven't realized it after 40+ posts, I'm challenging your idea that the shot 100%, undoubtedly should have counted. Fact is, you don't know simply because we didn't see all of the footage.
I've never said I'm 100% sure it was correct even though that was the call. The reason? Footage I haven't seen. If anything, you're the ones slinging junk around.
Okay, I'm trying one more time with you, and then I'm done for now.
1. The video we have provides a sufficient angle and quality to tell us what happened. We can see it. Another video will not show something conclusive we can't already see.
2. If it did show something magical, it would be in the Pac 12's best interest to publicize it. Those guys are getting trounced in the media right now.
3. Your point about frame gaps only applies to the gif. I concede that the gif might not be conclusive.
4. However, there are at least 30 frames per second in video. That is faster than the standard provided by the official game clock. THEREFORE, we have approximately three frames for every 10th of a second. We have three times the necessary standard to determine what happened.
5. Point number four is why I keep saying, "show me a frame shot of the ball in Chen's hands at 0.00 seconds, and I'll concede the refs made the right call. We have the standard to do so. Why isn't that frame shot available. If it becomes available, I'll agree with the refs. But until then, my eyes are telling me a different story.
6. A frame shot of the ball touching Chen's fingers at 0.1 seconds means nothing.
7. Other video of the same event--for which we have sufficient evidence--means nothing, but it seems to be what you're hanging your whole point on. Why do you say we're the conspiracy theorists?
I appreciate the effort, man (45 posts in one day - at this rate you'll pass me up in a couple of weeks and I've been here almost six years), but give it up. Why are you even here? (To troll, I know). You won, we don't allege you cheated and despite your contentions to the contrary, we don't have any conspiracy theory regarding the blown call. It is what it is, a blown call. There may be a multitude of reasons why the call was reversed, simple incompetence, subliminal bias towards the Pac-12's golden child, the home crowd, etc., but none of those reasons involve video evidence that Chen did not get the shot off. Most of your own fans acknowledge he got the shot off. Hell, I went to UofA and fielded numerous calls and texts from fellow UofA alumni last night and today saying "sorry". Do you think that happens if UofA wins the game without the obvious **** up by the refs?
He is over compensating for his guilt trip.
Deleted member 807
Guest
No one is arguing your right to hold any opinion, no matter how self-serving it may be.
I have the right to an opinion, too. Up until this thread, I was predisposed to think Zona fans were more rational and honest than their step brothers who are partial to ASU. You are an exception.
You avoided answering my question: Is transparency by the officials good or bad for basketball?
I disagree with your assertion that "irrefutable evidence has nothing to do with the fans."
Fans are the reason college basketball exists. Without fan participation, college basketball would look a lot more like intermurals. When fans are satisfied, good things happen. The officials work (indirectly) for the fans. When fans lose respect for officiating because the performance of athletes are negated by questionable calls, and refs determine the outcome more than the players, then it undermines the sport.
You are correct that there is not an explicit obligation for the officiating crew to hold a press conference after every game and justify their ruling and their performance. Even if they do succum to public pressure and either back their claim, or heaven forbid, issue a mea culpa, it would not change the outcome of Friday night's conference opener. We can take that point off the table.
But there is an expectation that the refs have a duty to call a fair game. When there is an outcome as controversial as this one that draws critism by fans and sports columnists from across the nation, then their is sufficient justification to investigate the performace of the referees and take whatever actions are necessary. This may mean releasing information that addresses this critism. It may mean changes to the rules. It may mean disciplining the refs.
Some response would be appropriate to bolster faith in the integrity of officiating and ultimately improve the quality of the game for the players, coaches and fans.
You are also hiding behind this "official video" excuse and ignored the case I laid out for 0.1 versus 0.0. You know I'm right.
Last edited by a moderator:
JCatano
New Member
1. Isn't that what we call conjecture? Have you seen the other footage? The first side screenshot of a video shows 0.1, blurry wrist/hand that you can actually see through, and a blurry ball directly over the wrist. The 2nd shot shows 0.0 and the ball away. The clock is not going to be matched with the frame ticks. On a different note, look at the Stanford/USC timer in the upper right. I'm not saying this is anything, but 2 seconds passed on that clock while 0.1 passed in the frames. What am I missing there? The ticker at the bottom would be moving at lightspeed, too.
2. They'll be fine. Just like they were when the UCONN goaltend that was called a block against Arizona went away after a day or 2.
3 and 4. Correct about .gif. Might be correct about the 30 FPS, but you'd have to do a major breakdown of footage to see. Technically, whoever posted those frames could be running 24 FPS, too.
5. Don't ask me why it isn't available. Ask the PAC 12. Not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen the way it was called.
6. Never said it did. You'd need a frame of the ball out of his hands at 0.1 to verify a good shot (with regard to .gif and still shots).
7. Your sufficient evidence is sufficient to you. It obviously wasn't to the officials, which is why you cannot discount the footage we didn't see. That doesn't mean they didn't blow the call... It just means you cannot state it as a 100% truly, blown call. -- Not anyone specifically. Just what I've seen. "They wanted Arizona to win to help keep the conference in a higher profile", "Crowd scared them", etc.
azbuff -
I'll might know what will happen to the refs that live in Denver while walking around in public. They blew the call, because they enjoy being ridiculed.
DBT -
I've made a call to the PAC 12 (for the footage) and the ESPN science guy. You all seem to think I have the pull to get things from powerful networks, so I'm going with it.
No guilt. I cracked a smile every time Tad's head was about to explode. (I do like him, though. Tied for 2nd with Monty.)
Skidmark -
I don't care to debate the integrity of basketball, because it wouldn't change the call. It's not really relevant to the actual call made. You say what happened isn't fair. I say that it might very well have been fair. Neither of us truly know, because some blurry stills on the internet isn't great evidence. A conclusion isn't always 100% end-game fact.
I'm not hiding behind the video. We haven't seen it. That's the truth. Whether or not that footage was a factor in the decision isn't known to us. Sure the ball may have left his hand at .0000002. Do you a screen of it?
Last edited:
No, you haven't, as I have patiently explained several times.
Please produce a quote which mentions the Pac-12 producing its own video footage. Not saying they don't use the production truck. Not saying they have a new video replay system. A quote specifically saying the Pac-12 is producing video for instant replays. Much less that they are using three cameras to do so.
Because right now you have produced that evidence exactly as often as you have produced an actual, as opposed to a hypothetical, picture of the ball on Chen's fingers and 0.0 on the clock. Things are not true because you say they're true, no matter how often you say it.
If it takes the ESPN science guy to get to the bottom of this, no matter what he finds, it proves our point. The call on the court was "Good!" The video was inconclusive barring extraordinary scientific analysis which, I'd assume, the three morons in the striped suits are incapable of performing in 5 days much less 5 minutes. More likely, evarrrrr!1. Isn't that what we call conjecture? Have you seen the other footage? The first side screenshot of a video shows 0.1, blurry wrist/hand that you can actually see through, and a blurry ball directly over the wrist. The 2nd shot shows 0.0 and the ball away. The clock is not going to be matched with the frame ticks. On a different note, look at the Stanford/USC timer in the upper right. I'm not saying this is anything, but 2 seconds passed on that clock while 0.1 passed in the frames. What am I missing there? The ticker at the bottom would be moving at lightspeed, too.
2. They'll be fine. Just like they were when the UCONN goaltend that was called a block against Arizona went away after a day or 2.
3 and 4. Correct about .gif. Might be correct about the 30 FPS, but you'd have to do a major breakdown of footage to see. Technically, whoever posted those frames could be running 24 FPS, too.
5. Don't ask me why it isn't available. Ask the PAC 12. Not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen the way it was called.
6. Never said it did. You'd need a frame of the ball out of his hands at 0.1 to verify a good shot (with regard to .gif and still shots).
7. Your sufficient evidence is sufficient to you. It obviously wasn't to the officials, which is why you cannot discount the footage we didn't see. That doesn't mean they didn't blow the call... It just means you cannot state it as a 100% truly, blown call. -- Not anyone specifically. Just what I've seen. "They wanted Arizona to win to help keep the conference in a higher profile", "Crowd scared them", etc.
azbuff -
I'll might know what will happen to the refs that live in Denver while walking around in public. They blew the call, because they enjoy being ridiculed.
DBT -
I've made a call to the PAC 12 (for the footage) and the ESPN science guy. You all seem to think I have the pull to get things from powerful networks, so I'm going with it.
No guilt. I cracked a smile every time Tad's head was about to explode. (I do like him, though. Tied for 2nd with Monty.)
When I asked before what kind of video this is that doesn't have gaps between frames, you said you don't know and I should ask the Pac 12.
Do you actually know what you're talking about this time, or are you simply inventing yet another diversion?
BTW, .gifs are full motion video. Youtube clips are full motion video. Screenshots are simply full motion video, frozen at a fixed point in time. None of them have shown the ball on Chen's fingers at 0.0. What you're looking for is a different angle. Except we have seen full motion of an ideal angle. There is still no evidence of the ball on Chen's fingers at 0.0. Not because the video we've seen somehow skips ahead in time, but because there is simply no such shot to be seen on the video. What there is is a shot that appears to show the ball OFF his fingers at 0.1, but which you refuse to accept because you somehow see footballs and invisible fingers where the rest of us see a basketball that has taken flight.
- Status