|
Replies: 10
| visibility 2,475
|
Legend [15212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18245
Joined: 6/10/09
|
It's a shame the commentators didn't question the 0.9 second
Jan 29, 2020, 2:46 PM
|
|
ruling.
How can a ref just make up an arbitrary number. You can't just average together 1.4 and 0.4, which is what they did.
But the TV commentators didn't even question it. Honestly, I'm not being a homer here, but that ball was in bounds when it touched. I think it was pretty clear. And the fact that it was called in bounds "on the court", there certainly wasn't indisputable evidence against it.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [64519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88961
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Re-setting the game clock to .9 was just asinine...
Jan 29, 2020, 2:52 PM
|
|
If the ball hit on the line, the clock is set at 1.4 seconds.
If the ball landed out of bounds after the bounce near the sideline, the clock is remains at .4.
It's one or the other.
No where in the rules is there any basis for what the official opted to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18245
Joined: 6/10/09
|
That's one of the more bizarre rulings I've ever seen...
Jan 29, 2020, 3:06 PM
|
|
Heck I don't know, let's just split the difference.
lol, what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 462
Joined: 11/4/09
|
I know! I was losing my mind when they did that...
Jan 29, 2020, 2:55 PM
|
|
Big difference in 0.4 and 0.9 to get a shot off....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
To be fair
Jan 29, 2020, 2:56 PM
|
|
We don't really know how it was called on the court. The ref who was standing there may very well have called it out on the first bounce, but there may have been a delay in the time it bounced and the signal.
*IF* that were the case then they could (without clear evidence of if that first bounce was inbound or not) readjusted the clock to 1.4 seconds.
With that said, your initial point is 100% correct. I was amazed that the announcers actually praised the split-the-difference decision instead of questioning it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15212]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18245
Joined: 6/10/09
|
I'm pretty sure they didn't blow the whistle on that initial
Jan 29, 2020, 3:08 PM
|
|
bounce near the sideline.
But, nonetheless, that was one of the weirder rulings I've ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
No, the created the "average" scenario
Jan 29, 2020, 2:56 PM
|
|
and then noted how that made perfect sense.
Maroooons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [813]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1613
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They handled it correctly under the new guidelines
Jan 29, 2020, 3:19 PM
|
|
Another example is if they are unable to tell if the shooter is behind or on the 3 pt. line on a made shot. In such cases, the officials will now award 2.5 pts for the made basket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14205
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Will cut down on number of OT games.***
Jan 29, 2020, 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6582]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8157
Joined: 1/2/00
|
they may have just thought it was out at .9 after replay
Jan 30, 2020, 11:14 AM
|
|
the .4 was probably when the whistle sounded. Maybe, after review they determined it hit at .9 and it is just coincidence that it was the mid point. They showed plenty of replay to show the first bounce was 1.4, but I dont remember seeing a replay confirming .4. Maybe the officials did see this and thought the 2nd bounce was at .9 instead of .4. I really dont think they averaged it. That was just something the announcers said with no evidence to support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6582]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8157
Joined: 1/2/00
|
just rewatched it, only thing is I couldnt tell if Mack
Jan 30, 2020, 11:40 AM
|
|
touched the ball after the first bounce. If he did, it was around the .9 to 1 sec mark. Ball definitely hit the 2nd time at .4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 2,475
|
|
|
50
