WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater (/thread-18974.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater (/thread-18974.html)
RE: freddot5 - TheWildJacko - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 03:52 PM)BosCard Wrote: An amazing finish no doubt but is anyone else troubled by how much difficulty we have had against a team that has only won 4 games in the PAC-12? The Hulls can get pushed around on offense by physical defensive teams. This is where we really really really really really miss Carrington and Jones. They are big strong slashers who can drive through the contact and score.
A little, but not that much because:
- Hollingshed and Sherrod are legitimately great players
- Colorado has a very unfavorable Pac-12 schedule, and they've already played nearly all of their toughest conference games. They get us twice, UCLA twice, and the Oregon schools twice, and they've already played (and lost) 7 of those 8 games—all games one would expect them to lose since they're all top-10 matchups. By contrast, we only get UCLA once, and while we do play the Oregon schools twice, we still have 2 of those games left on our schedule. So CU has played 7 top-10 teams in conference already, with 1 remaining, while we've only played 3, with 2 remaining (plus AZ and ASU who are both top-10 upset threats).
Meanwhile, NC State went down twice this weekend and Mississippi State is in danger in the 4th quarter against Kentucky, so we may be looking at a #5 or #6 ranking this week (probably #6 but who knows).
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams 35' buzzer beater - UltimateCard - 02-16-2020
The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams 35' buzzer beater - mbdude - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 04:54 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
That was cool. Thx for posting
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams half court buzzer beater - 81alum - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 04:21 PM)standfan Wrote: It reminds me most of Nick Robinson’s steal and about same distance game winning shot against Arizona. But the game tying three just before that play was a Childress three (after a Lottich steal). Kiana hit both of the big shots.
You beat me to it. Just what I was thinking. The combination of a steal and desperation shot to win, just like Robinson. But of course, Kiana also had the game tying shot seconds before....hard to think of a more outstanding 14 seconds of play.
And the way that Kiana got the steal--jumping repeatedly and trying to tap the ball out of the hands of a much taller player, and succeeding!
Just astounding.
(02-16-2020, 04:54 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)Kiana Williams did not just win the game, she made Kevin Danna into an exciting, exhilarating, play by play announcer. I will leave it to all of you to decide which was the more difficult task.
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
(02-16-2020, 03:52 PM)BosCard Wrote: An amazing finish no doubt but is anyone else troubled by how much difficulty we have had against a team that has only won 4 games in the PAC-12? The Hulls can get pushed around on offense by physical defensive teams. This is where we really really really really really miss Carrington and Jones. They are big strong slashers who can drive through the contact and score.I am very troubled.
Whether you think we really deserved to win this game probably hinges on whether you think the officiating was fair or not. If it was fair, then we were incapable of defending without committing a boatload of fouls, and we were incapable of driving against a close defense team. If the officiating was was lopsided--as it seems--then we prevailed despite giving up a handicap.
I think by now it is obvious that our Achilles is the ability to drive against close defenses. Texas, UCLA, and Colorado all were problematic because of that. And yes, it would be a different story with Carrington and Jones on the floor. But they are not.
Before this game Tara talked about getting Jenna Brown in the game since she drives well and finishes. But she had only 5 minutes. Lexie was clearly given the order to drive, drive, and drive. She missed on every single drive, with her only basket being a trey.
Yes, I am concerned. But not enough to fail to revel for a little while in the most exciting win I've seen in years :)
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams half court buzzer beater - jonnyss - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 03:05 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I have this vision of Tara in the last timeout doing her best Christopher Walken imitation: I’ve got a fever... and the only prescription is More Kiana!
i pass along from thewildjacko to watch tara's reaction after the game-ending 3. she's got moves!
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams 39' buzzer beater - 81alum - 02-16-2020
As delighted as I was with the win, a part of me was especially delighted that the grossly pro-Colorado announcers were forced to call that finale. Who were those two, by the way? Does the Pac 12 network have to rely on local broadcasters to call some of their games? Not enough Mary Murphys to go around?
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams half court buzzer beater - chimera - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 05:02 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-16-2020, 04:21 PM)standfan Wrote: It reminds me most of Nick Robinson’s steal and about same distance game winning shot against Arizona. But the game tying three just before that play was a Childress three (after a Lottich steal). Kiana hit both of the big shots.
You beat me to it. Just what I was thinking. The combination of a steal and desperation shot to win, just like Robinson. But of course, Kiana also had the game tying shot seconds before....hard to think of a more outstanding 14 seconds of play.
And the way that Kiana got the steal--jumping repeatedly and trying to tap the ball out of the hands of a much taller player, and succeeding!
Just astounding.
(02-16-2020, 04:54 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)Kiana Williams did not just win the game, she made Kevin Danna into an exciting, exhilarating, play by play announcer. I will leave it to all of you to decide which was the more difficult task.
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
(02-16-2020, 03:52 PM)BosCard Wrote: An amazing finish no doubt but is anyone else troubled by how much difficulty we have had against a team that has only won 4 games in the PAC-12? The Hulls can get pushed around on offense by physical defensive teams. This is where we really really really really really miss Carrington and Jones. They are big strong slashers who can drive through the contact and score.I am very troubled.
Whether you think we really deserved to win this game probably hinges on whether you think the officiating was fair or not. If it was fair, then we were incapable of defending without committing a boatload of fouls, and we were incapable of driving against a close defense team. If the officiating was was lopsided--as it seems--then we prevailed despite giving up a handicap.
I think by now it is obvious that our Achilles is the ability to drive against close defenses. Texas, UCLA, and Colorado all were problematic because of that. And yes, it would be a different story with Carrington and Jones on the floor. But they are not.
Before this game Tara talked about getting Jenna Brown in the game since she drives well and finishes. But she had only 5 minutes. Lexie was clearly given the order to drive, drive, and drive. She missed on every single drive, with her only basket being a trey.
Yes, I am concerned. But not enough to fail to revel for a little while in the most exciting win I've seen in years :)
Maybe a little concerning but don't be very concerned. CO is not a great team but they do have some nice players and they do play a physical style that can bother our players. I'm sure they were also very, very, very motivated after the loss at Maples earlier this season. Games like this happen on the road in conference every year, even the years back when we ran the table or lost only a game. Maybe not the wild finish but the tightness and toughness of the game. Some teams are just tougher match-ups. Lexie can drive, and usually is a reliable finisher so I would hazard a guess if she took the same shots over again the exact same way, she would make many more of them. Just win, that's all, just win.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams 39' buzzer beater - CompSci87 - 02-16-2020
I wasn't able to watch live. After watching the game on DVR, I don't have much of a problem with the officiating. We sent Colorado to the line a lot by reaching as well as trying to block shots and getting the arm. When we drove to the basket, we tried mostly to slip around defenders and evade contact, and Colorado didn't reach. They did get some blocks by going for them selectively.
What seemed to give us the most trouble on offense was Colorado's aggressive show/trap on screens. I think that's something the coaches can improve our response to.
On defense we had trouble with their quickness, both from their guards (especially Sherrod) and their bigs (I'm thinking mostly Holingshed).
Another equalizing factor was the basic nitty gritty of Colorado hitting shots and Stanford missing.
Anyway, great game by both teams, and I'm just glad the Cardinal won!
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams 35' buzzer beater - Madera86 - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 04:59 PM)mbdude Wrote:(02-16-2020, 04:54 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
That was cool. Thx for posting
That was the audio to which I was listening. Fun call. I was also amused by the way the announcer self-consciously composed himself almost immediately afterward It seemed like he even brought it down a notch before normal. And later in the broadcast, he remarked, "it was almost impossible to hear anything at the end, except for someone screaming into the microphone.." LOL.
(02-16-2020, 05:33 PM)chimera Wrote:(02-16-2020, 05:02 PM)81alum Wrote:(02-16-2020, 04:21 PM)standfan Wrote: It reminds me most of Nick Robinson’s steal and about same distance game winning shot against Arizona. But the game tying three just before that play was a Childress three (after a Lottich steal). Kiana hit both of the big shots.
You beat me to it. Just what I was thinking. The combination of a steal and desperation shot to win, just like Robinson. But of course, Kiana also had the game tying shot seconds before....hard to think of a more outstanding 14 seconds of play.
And the way that Kiana got the steal--jumping repeatedly and trying to tap the ball out of the hands of a much taller player, and succeeding!
Just astounding.
(02-16-2020, 04:54 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: The call of the final sequence (echoes of the Murph)Kiana Williams did not just win the game, she made Kevin Danna into an exciting, exhilarating, play by play announcer. I will leave it to all of you to decide which was the more difficult task.
https://soundcloud.com/kevindanna/kiana-williams-winner-at-colorado-21620
(02-16-2020, 03:52 PM)BosCard Wrote: An amazing finish no doubt but is anyone else troubled by how much difficulty we have had against a team that has only won 4 games in the PAC-12? The Hulls can get pushed around on offense by physical defensive teams. This is where we really really really really really miss Carrington and Jones. They are big strong slashers who can drive through the contact and score.I am very troubled.
Whether you think we really deserved to win this game probably hinges on whether you think the officiating was fair or not. If it was fair, then we were incapable of defending without committing a boatload of fouls, and we were incapable of driving against a close defense team. If the officiating was was lopsided--as it seems--then we prevailed despite giving up a handicap.
I think by now it is obvious that our Achilles is the ability to drive against close defenses. Texas, UCLA, and Colorado all were problematic because of that. And yes, it would be a different story with Carrington and Jones on the floor. But they are not.
Before this game Tara talked about getting Jenna Brown in the game since she drives well and finishes. But she had only 5 minutes. Lexie was clearly given the order to drive, drive, and drive. She missed on every single drive, with her only basket being a trey.
Yes, I am concerned. But not enough to fail to revel for a little while in the most exciting win I've seen in years :)
Maybe a little concerning but don't be very concerned. CO is not a great team but they do have some nice players and they do play a physical style that can bother our players. I'm sure they were also very, very, very motivated after the loss at Maples earlier this season. Games like this happen on the road in conference every year, even the years back when we ran the table or lost only a game. Maybe not the wild finish but the tightness and toughness of the game. Some teams are just tougher match-ups. Lexie can drive, and usually is a reliable finisher so I would hazard a guess if she took the same shots over again the exact same way, she would make many more of them. Just win, that's all, just win.
It was a close game, and we dodged a bullet. On the other hand, we did have the lead for about 3/4 of the game. I thought we had made some good adjustments based on our last game with Colorado, and perhaps the team got tired at the end, but they saved enough energy for one last burst.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams half court buzzer beater - M T - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 02:11 PM)martyup Wrote: CU shot 27 free throws. We shot 8. Pac-12 should investigate this officiating crew
Let me start by acknowledging that refereeing is difficult. Most of the time, they don't get the benefit of replay. They are often blocked from seeing a foul (and, IMO, guess). The audience has a different view, which leads to different perceptions of what is or isn't a foul. They have to make a quick whistle or someone will question a "late whistle".
As I understand it, in half-court play, each official has a position they take and each has a responsibility for what they view. It seems they rotate among the positions, but I haven't understood how that is done. I have a hypothesis that each official should see approximately the same number of fouls (judged by some all-seeing, all-knowing oracle) in a game, and that the ratios of those fouls on each team should be approximately the same, and mostly independent of previous fouls.
Given that, as I watched this game live (on TV), I felt one official was calling a large number of fouls on one team, and most of his calls were against that one team. So I investigated.
The box score statistics don't show which officials call which fouls. So I watched the video to see which official called which fouls on which teams. (In some cases there are two officials seemingly both calling a foul, so there are more credits to officials than fouls.)
The stats I did on the calls in this game look even less likely statistically than even I thought.
Here are the calls by the 3 officials. "C" means the call was a foul on Colorado.
Ref1: SSSCSSCSSSSSSCC S:11 C:4 (S: 73% 61% of the calls made against Stanford. 45% of all the foul calls.)
Ref2: SSSSCCSSCS S:7 C:3 (S: 70%)
Ref3: CCCCCCCS C:7 S:1 (S: 12.5%. 50% of the calls made against Colorado.)
NOTE: Ref1 made an emphatic call against Stanford on the first foul. It was overturned, apparently by another official (could Ref1 be so emphatic and then, in retrospect, be able to say the defender was in the circle?). I leave the credit as a call against Stanford for him, but I have no other ref that I can credit the correct call. Ref3 started to run down the court. Ref2 didn't make any move on camera toward Ref1.
NOTE: These statistics only cover foul calls made, not counting the intentional fouls at the end of the game. (I don't count them as they aren't judgement calls.) They don't cover any 50-50 calls on out-of-bounds. They don't include any calls that might have been made but no one called it. The only items in the stats are the calls these officials chose to make, not ones they chose not to make. I don't consider the timing or order of the calls, nor the nature (such as resulting in FTs or fouls on key players) of the foul calls.
NOTE: I am NOT saying that any of the refs made calls one way or the other intentionally or even unintentionally. I am not saying that any of these calls might not be fouls, as called (except the overturned one).
I am saying the statistics look strange to me, despite it being a small sample of calls. I suggest it would be interesting to see statistics of these individual refs in other games and in other crews. It would be interesting to see the statistics for referee crews that are disjoint from this one.
I'm no statistician but I think this would be strong evidence that calls are not random with equal probability. I imagine in any experiment, Ref3 would be rejected as an outlier!
Here is my log of the calls (including some comments that aren't part of the statistics above). If I can see two refs and neither raised a hand to indicate the foul, I presumed it was the 3rd ref that made the call. There could be calls in which one ref in camera made the call, while another ref off-camera raised a hand to indicate a foul and I couldn't see that. When two refs indicated a foul, I presumed that both refs were in agreement as to who was to be charged for the foul, although that is never confirmed.
Game times in parenthesis indicate a comment about something other than a foul call.
Q1 7:25 Ref1 calls a charge on Stanford. It isn't clear who corrected/overruled him because the defender had her entire right foot and half her left foot in the circle. Ref3 runs toward the other end after the initial call, so I guess it was Ref2. FTs
Q1 7:08 Ref1 calls a foul on Stanford for reaching in. This is the one where the ball carrier swings her elbows and strikes Dodson in the chest knocking her back a foot. FTs.
Q1 6:12 Ref2 calls a foul on Stanford on a shot FTs
Q1 5:12 Ref1 calls a foul against Stanford when one Colorado player runs over another.
Q1 4:01 Ref2 calls a foul on Stanford on a shot. FTs
Q1 3:50 Ref1 calls a foul on Colorado.
Q1 2:16 Ref1 calls a foul on Stanford on a reach-in. FTs
Q1 1:31 Ref1 calls a foul on Stanford on an offensive rebound attempt. FTs
Q2 9:49 Ref3 calls a reach-in foul on Colorado.
Q2 8:56 Ref3 calls a reach-in foul on Colorado
Q2 8:45 Ref2 calls a blocking foul on Stanford. FTs
Q2 8:00 Ref1 calls a foul in the back court on Colorado.
Q2 6:57 Ref2 calls a reach-in foul on Stanford.
Q2 0:08 Ref3 calls a arm-block on Colorado.
Q3 9:49 Ref2 calls a backcourt foul on Colorado
Q3 8:37 Ref1 calls a foul on Stanford a shot. FTs
Q3 8:04 Ref1 calls a reach-in foul on Stanford.
Q3 7:02 Ref2 & Ref3 call a blocking foul on Colorado. FTs
Q3 6:51 Ref1 calls a shoving foul on Stanford
Q3 4:27 Ref1 & Ref2 call a foul on Stanford on a shot. FTs
Q3 4:10 Ref1 calls a illegal screen on Stanford
Q3 3:32 Ref1 calls a foul on Stanford
Q3 2:50 Ref2 calls a foul on Stanford
Q3 2:42 Ref1 calls a foul on Colorado
Q3 2:38 Ref2 calls a foul on Colorado (illegal screen)
Q3 2:20 Ref1 calls a reach-in foul on Stanford on a shot. FTs
Q3 1:58 Ref3 calls a foul on Colorado after a shot.
Q3 (0:57) Ref1 - Refs get to make a lot of 50-50 calls that aren't fouls. Ref1 makes a contested out of bounds call in favor of Colorado
Q4 8:36 Ref1 calls a foul against Stanford on a shot. FTs
Q4 8:07 Ref1 calls a foul against Colorado on a def. rebound attempt.
Q4 6:33 Ref3 calls a foul against Colorado on a shot. FTs
Q4 5:53 Ref3 calls a foul against Colorado.
Q4 (3:24) Ref1 is on the baseline and chooses NOT to call a blocking foul on a Colorado player in the circle who collides with Kiana as Kiana is landing from a shot. How many non-calls are there in a game?
Q4 (3:23) Ref1 50-50 call on a ball out of bounds, given to Colorado
Q4 1:51 Ref3 & Ref2 call a foul against Stanford. (Ref3 indicated who was called for the foul.) I think it is clear that Lacie had the position first. The original video & the replay show that. It was Lacie's 5th.
Q4 0:43 Ref1 calls a foul on Colorado in a scramble.
Q4 0:29 (intentional foul by Stanford)
Q4 0:28 (intentional foul by Stanford)
Q4 0:26 (intentional foul by Stanford)
Q4 0:24 (intentional foul by Stanford)
Q4 0:18 (intentional foul by Stanford)
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - martyup - 02-16-2020
Could Ref3 be attempting to counter balance an obviously biased Ref1?
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - chimera - 02-16-2020
It has long been my dream to sit and watch a few games with a good experienced ref to talk about all the calls, what the ref sees, etc. Will never happen but it would be fantastic if it did.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - Goose - 02-16-2020
The problem with the above analysis is the assumption that fouls are a random variable. They clearly are not. Some teams foul more than others. Some teams foul more in some games and less in others. It depends on a lot of non-random things, like what the defense is trying to play and how the offense is attacking it. Fouls are supposed to be called based on what actually happened. Expecting that fouls should be equally distributed between the two teams clearly makes no sense.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - M T - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 07:28 PM)martyup Wrote: Could Ref3 be attempting to counter balance an obviously biased Ref1?Ref3 calls per quarter:
Q1: 0
Q2: 2 early calls (first 1:04) and 1 late (0:08)
Q3: 1
Q4: 3 (Last call is the only call against Stanford, in a foul I thought should be against Colorado.)
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - StanFanFam13 - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 07:49 PM)Goose Wrote: The problem with the above analysis is the assumption that fouls are a random variable. They clearly are not. Some teams foul more than others. Some teams foul more in some games and less in others. It depends on a lot of non-random things, like what the defense is trying to play and how the offense is attacking it. Fouls are supposed to be called based on what actually happened. Expecting that fouls should be equally distributed between the two teams clearly makes no sense.
I understood M T to be saying that the fouls should be roughly evenly distributed between refs, not teams. "Each official should see approximately the same number of fouls" doesn't imply that those fouls are split evenly between teams. M T further says that those fouls should logically be similar in ratio across officials (i.e. if Team 1 is fouling twice as much as Team 2, then each official should probably be calling a fouls on those teams at a 2:1 ratio, rather than one official calling most of the fouls on Team 1 and another calling most of the fouls on Team 2). Definitely valid to point out that in today's game, that was far from the case.
Thanks for the thorough and interesting analysis, M T. As you recognize, there is unfortunately the outstanding and largely un-quantifiable factor of uncalled fouls. I attended the game in person, and while I didn't love some of the fouls called on us, I was much more bothered by the lack of fouls called on Colorado. There was a significant amount of under-the-basket jockeying off-ball that the refs seemed not to acknowledge, and Sherrod's physicality resulted in what to my (admittedly untrained) eye were several reach-arounds and shoves that were at least equivalent to what Stanford players got called for. I was honestly shocked that she didn't foul out.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - M T - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 07:49 PM)chimera Wrote: It has long been my dream to sit and watch a few games with a good experienced ref to talk about all the calls, what the ref sees, etc. Will never happen but it would be fantastic if it did.
With about 20 high-frame-rate cameras from all different angles, and anti-jitter cameras on the official's head or body to see what they see or don't see. (One of my pet peeves is when a ref would seem to need X-ray vision for a call they make.) Even better, record it as 3D and play it back in 3D from the view of the ref. You could also enough cameras to watch it as VR so you can see what was going on, even if the ref couldn't see it.
Too bad there isn't a Seniors' game for BB for which one could do this. Perhaps as a training video for BB Officials?
No ref or former ref is really going to say much publicly that could be viewed as questioning any refs calling a game.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - BobK - 02-16-2020
I have sat with former refs for several sports. They all said what they thought.
I don’t know how often a Pac 12 evaluator is present. There’s was one at softball yesterday and today.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - 81alum - 02-16-2020
Refereeing is certainly biased. I think it was Viking Guy who posted the link to the statistical study that showed that referees favor the home team over the visiting team, and they favor the team behind over the team ahead. The stats in that study seemed incontrovertible to me.
As the visiting team that was ahead for most of the game, I am sure we picked up a lot of that bias.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - WBB fan - 02-16-2020
(02-16-2020, 09:13 PM)81alum Wrote: Refereeing is certainly biased. I think it was Viking Guy who posted the link to the statistical study that showed that referees favor the home team over the visiting team, and they favor the team behind over the team ahead. The stats in that study seemed incontrovertible to me.
As the visiting team that was ahead for most of the game, I am sure we picked up a lot of that bias.
A number of years back, don't remember how many, there was an article in Sports Illustrated about the source of "home field advantage," for all sports. The conclusion as I recall it was that it was officiating bias in favor of the home team, probably influenced by crowd reaction to officiating.
RE: WBB: Stanford 69 Colorado 66 on Williams' 39' buzzer beater - CompSci87 - 02-16-2020
Quote:They have to make a quick whistle or someone will question a "late whistle"Just to pick on this one little point: I hope refs are never influenced by the possibility that someone will question a late whistle. Although commentators love to say "late whistle" as if that makes it questionable, there's nothing wrong with it.
The Warriors' announcers have explained why we sometimes see a late whistle from a ref relatively far from the play. It comes from an officiating convention. Normally the ref closest to the play has the main responsibility to make the call. If a ref who's farther away sees an infraction, he/she waits for the nearby ref to blow the whistle. If the nearby ref seems to have missed seeing the call but the more distant ref is sure of it, he/she will blow the whistle after a slight delay.