WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game (/thread-15611.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: Interesting call in Ore/$C game (/thread-15611.html)
WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - Viking_Guy - 02-16-2018
The Toejams took the Ducks into 2OT in Eugene, and were trailing by 1 with about 48 seconds left.
With 2 seconds on the shot clock, Bando launched a desperation heave that hit the rim hard enough to go up onto the top of the backboard. It sat there, then rolled back and fell through.
Trakh et al immediately protested, but, as of course it had to be, Missy et al said the call stood, and only reviewed the clock. Now, first of all, I think that's wrong - the call is a boundary call, and should be reviewable - IIRC, ball out of bounds is definitely one of the reviewable situations.
Now, the top of the backboard is inbounds (as are the sides and bottom), BUT it looked to me like there was a stanchion attached to the top of the backboard by some nuts and bolts (perhaps for the top of board camera?)Â Most of the time, the ball comes back off a shot clock, which is definitely out of bounds. But there was a metal plate on top of the board, extending off the back of it, and the ball landed on that and rolled back; in other words, part of a support structure, NOT of the board itself.
That non-call was the key point in the game, as Oregon went from up 1 to up 4 with 45 seconds left, and saw out the game from the FT line.
Any refs/rules afficianados out there know the correct call?
VG
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - crackpot - 02-16-2018
Missy finding ways to screw over Stanford when Stanford isn't even playing. That was unbelievable. It was SO obvious.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - 81alum - 02-16-2018
Oregon State just took the lead over UCLA midway through the third quarter. Go Beavs!
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - 81alum - 02-16-2018
A half court shot rattled in and out for OSU, or they would have won. Overtime. What is it about the state of Oregon today?
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - CompSci87 - 02-16-2018
(02-16-2018, 10:14 PM)81alum link Wrote:Oregon State just took the lead over UCLA midway through the third quarter. Go Beavs!Game goes to overtime as OSU blocks a UCLA shot, Rueck calls timeout with 1.3 seconds left, and an OSU player's long 3-pointer at the buzzer goes in and out. Whew!
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - 81alum - 02-16-2018
(02-16-2018, 11:01 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=18745.msg224117#msg224117 date=1518844485]Game goes to overtime as OSU blocks a UCLA shot, Rueck calls timeout with 1.3 seconds left, and an OSU player's long 3-pointer at the buzzer goes in and out. Whew!
Oregon State just took the lead over UCLA midway through the third quarter. Go Beavs!
[/quote]
Oregon State wins!
Now, I wonder if that is actually good for us or not? We might be competing with OSU to host. On the other hand, we might pass UCLA, especially if Oregon beats them too.Â
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - Viking_Guy - 02-16-2018
OSU just won, 67-64.
I'm going to find it really hard to cheer for the Bruins, but I'll make the attempt.
VG
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - CompSci87 - 02-16-2018
I'm still thinking about the conference championship and tournament. If we win out now, we are assured the #1 seed in the tournament. If in addition UCLA beats Oregon this weekend, we'd finish as sole regular season champions. (We have the tiebreaker over Oregon, but that only applies to seeding, not who is/are considered regular season champions.) Also, I think we may prefer OSU to remain as #4 seed in the conference tournament rather than having UCLA drop to #4.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - CompSci87 - 02-16-2018
(02-16-2018, 09:43 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Any refs/rules afficianados out there know the correct call?
From the replay I saw after the OSU game, it's really hard to pronounce definitely that the ball went past the backboard or touched a support. Super close call.
Art. 2. The ball shall be out of bounds when it touches a player who is out of bounds, any other person, the floor or any object on or outside a boundary, the supports or back of the backboard, or the ceiling or overhead equipment
Art. 3. The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction
A.R. 167. The ball touches or rolls along the edge of the backboard without touching the supports RULING: The ball is inbounds. (Rule 7-1.2)
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - M T - 02-17-2018
Missy is correct. The (current) rules do not permit reviewing whether the ball goes out of bounds. (It does allow reviewing which team last deflected the ball before it goes out of bounds. The question is, what happens if such a review finds the ball did not go out of bounds? )  There is one call where they do use the instant replay for position -- being in/out of the restricted zone IF a charge or blocking foul is called in the last 2 minutes of the game or overtime. [Note that if a player is near the out-of-bounds line and is passed the ball, and is called for being out-of-bounds, the call is not reviewable. Only deflections are reviewed. ]
I did not see the game. If there was no out-of-bounds call on that play, the clock was not stopped for that reason. So, she was reviewing the clock's stopping after the basket was made.
By the way, I believe "The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction." is not well defined. The obvious (to me) reading contradicts the rule about the sides & top being in bounds. Certainly in the Oregon-USC game, some part of the ball had gone from the front of the backboard to behind the plane of the backboard, while it was over the backboard.
As we know, VG is a fan of WVB, in which the replay is used for out of bounds. I have to say that I would have guessed instant replay could be used for out-of-bounds calls in WBB.
(02-16-2018, 09:43 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:With 2 seconds on the shot clock, Bando launched a desperation heave that hit the rim hard enough to go up onto the top of the backboard. It sat there, then rolled back and fell through.
Trakh et al immediately protested, but, as of course it had to be, Missy et al said the call stood, and only reviewed the clock. Now, first of all, I think that's wrong - the call is a boundary call, and should be reviewable - IIRC, ball out of bounds is definitely one of the reviewable situations.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - Viking_Guy - 02-17-2018
MT-
Thanks for the clarification. I thought for sure I had remembered a replay involving a ball deflecting off of some piece of equipment above the backboard. Maybe it was in the pros.
Which leaves me waiting with bated breath for a ball hitting the edge of a chair, or someone on the bench, Missy missying (hmm, a homophone for mis-seeing) it, and being unable to review. Although I guess the player or coach contact could be reviewed for a technical.
Hoping for that she stays up in Oregon for the Ducks-Bruins on Sunday,
VG
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - M T - 02-17-2018
(02-16-2018, 11:31 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:I'm still thinking about the conference championship and tournament. If we win out now, we are assured the #1 seed in the tournament. If in addition UCLA beats Oregon this weekend, we'd finish as sole regular season champions. (We have the tiebreaker over Oregon, but that only applies to seeding, not who is/are considered regular season champions.) Also, I think we may prefer OSU to remain as #4 seed in the conference tournament rather than having UCLA drop to #4.
If the PAC-12 tourney seeding order is that ties are broken by better/best result against the highest ranking teams, then if OSU wins out and UCLA loses to Oregon, then UCLA would be seeded #4. If Stanford wins out, it gets the #1 seed and would probably play the #4 seed in the tourney semifinals.
So, for bettering Stanford's chances to win the PAC-12 tourney, I think I'll cheer for UCLA to beat Oregon. (And should the unbearable happen Saturday, I definitely will be cheering for UCLA.)
BUT, if an oracle told me that Stanford would win the PAC-12 tourney, no matter the opponent, I'd cheer for Oregon to beat UCLA. I think we gain better seeding if we beat both 24-6 UCLA & 29-4 Oregon again than if we beat 24-6 Oregon State & 28-5 Oregon or 24-6 OSU & 25-6 UCLA (records as of game we would play against them).
Our game on Saturday is a BIG GAME ! Go Cardinal!
By the way, RealTImeRPI still predicts Cal beating Stanford Saturday.
Sagarin has the following which predicts about a 6 point win by Stanford. But we know predictions are probably most unreliable in rivalries.
   CONFERENCE     CENTRAL MEAN  SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS   WIN50%
 1 PAC-12         = 84.57   83.89 ( 2)  12   84.47 ( 1)
 2 BIG 12         = 84.28   84.51 ( 1)  10   84.20 ( 2)
 3 ATLANTIC COAST     = 82.88   82.81 ( 3)  15   82.83 ( 3)
 4 SOUTHEASTERN      = 81.89   82.33 ( 4)  14   81.96 ( 4)
 5 BIG TEN        = 81.73   80.99 ( 5)  14   81.48 ( 5)
and
 1 PAC-12         = 84.57   83.89 ( 2) TEAMS= 12   84.47 ( 1)
Women's College Basketball 2017-2018 Div I games only  through games of 2018 February 15 Thursday                     Â
                RATING  W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 25 | VS top 50 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT Â
        HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.74]                       [ 2.71]   [ 2.85]   [ 2.85]
 6 Oregon         = 97.81 23 4 78.97( 15)  4 4 |  9 4 | 98.16  6 | 97.80  6 | 88.54 20
 8 UCLA          = 96.32 21 4 82.00( 3)  4 4 | 10 4 | 96.10  8 | 96.61  8 | 95.31 11
 13 Oregon St.       = 91.51 19 6 75.62( 51)  2 5 |  4 6 | 91.61 14 | 91.23 14 | 87.06 26
 14 Stanford        = 91.26 19 8 81.81( 4)  4 7 |  8 7 | 90.65 15 | 91.04 15 | 105.61  3
 16 Arizona St.      = 89.54 17 9 79.12( 13)  1 7 |  5 9 | 90.46 16 | 89.31 17 | 73.77 88
 27 Southern Cal      = 86.70 17 8 77.83( 24)  2 5 |  3 8 | 86.42 28 | 86.69 27 | 88.46 22
 39 Utah          = 83.32 15 10 75.84( 48)  1 5 |  1 7 | 84.44 37 | 82.65 42 | 65.68 142
 46 California       = 82.21 17 9 78.57( 18)  0 9 |  3 9 | 82.17 45 | 83.38 40 | 74.54 82
 72 Washington St.     = 77.71 10 16 81.08( 5)  0 8 |  1 11 | 77.99 70 | 77.58 72 | 69.59 117
 89 Colorado        = 74.83 11 13 76.81( 33)  0 6 |  2 9 | 75.41 83 | 74.78 91 | 61.79 164
105 Washington       = 72.23  7 18 80.59( 7)  0 9 |  1 12 | 73.14 99 | 71.70 113 | 55.77 205
202 Arizona        = 63.19  6 19 74.43( 67)  0 5 |  0 11 | 63.71 198 | 62.17 221 | 54.55 217
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - CompSci87 - 02-17-2018
(02-17-2018, 01:53 AM)MT link Wrote:The (current) rules do not permit reviewing whether the ball goes out of bounds. (It does allow reviewing which team last deflected the ball before it goes out of bounds. The question is, what happens if such a review finds the ball did not go out of bounds? )I suppose in theory it goes to the opposite team from the last to touch it before the ref blew the whistle to stop play. That is, out of bounds is deemed to have occurred when it was whistled, and that can't be changed on review. Anyway, I doubt this case comes up much.
The real injustice in out of bounds video reviews is when the ball went out of bounds because the offensive player was fouled by a defender who didn't touch the ball, but the foul was missed in real time. When refs see a ball go out of bounds with contact but are uncertain in real time whether a foul occurred, they will often compromise by calling it no foul, last touched by the defense. But video review forces them to reverse that and give the ball to the defense despite the foul, because common fouls can't be called from replay.
Quote:By the way, I believe "The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction." is not well defined.
Yes, that rule seems to contradict the other rules and generally makes no sense. What if you shoot a high arcing shot from just inbounds at the endline (not necessarily directly behind the backboard, maybe off to one side), such that part or all of the ball passes over the top of the backboard from behind (without touching a support) and it lands in the basket. Is the ball ruled to have gone out of bounds as it passed over? That's sometimes used as a trick shot in HORSE. I've actually had people tell me that shot is illegal because the ball is considered out of bounds.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - crackpot - 02-17-2018
(02-17-2018, 02:16 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:Hoping for that she stays up in Oregon for the Ducks-Bruins on Sunday,
VG
I bet we see her this afternoon in Berkeley.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - 81alum - 02-17-2018
(02-17-2018, 01:11 PM)crackpot link Wrote:[quote author=Viking_Guy link=topic=18745.msg224134#msg224134 date=1518859013]
Hoping for that she stays up in Oregon for the Ducks-Bruins on Sunday,
VG
I bet we see her this afternoon in Berkeley.
[/quote]
It would not be the biggest disaster if we did. In the right environment, with the right teams, and surrounded by the right supporting officials, she doesn't always seem terrible.  We've been complaining about Missy ever since she robbed us in the sweet 16 in Boise against Colorado in 2002, and 16 years of griping and reporting her bad calls may have marginally helped.Â
How ironic that it was also in a game against Colorado--16 years later--that Missy's ineptitude was finally surpassed--by Benny Luna. It was, however, just a one day performance, so we can't give Benny the career-worst award just yet.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - JTM - 02-17-2018
Quote:By the way, I believe "The ball shall be out of bounds when any part of the ball passes over the backboard from any direction." is not well defined.
Yes, that rule seems to contradict the other rules and generally makes no sense. What if you shoot a high arcing shot from just inbounds at the endline (not necessarily directly behind the backboard, maybe off to one side), such that part or all of the ball passes over the top of the backboard from behind (without touching a support) and it lands in the basket. Is the ball ruled to have gone out of bounds as it passed over? That's sometimes used as a trick shot in HORSE. I've actually had people tell me that shot is illegal because the ball is considered out of bounds.
Didn't Larry Bird do this in an NBA game years ago? He was behind the backboard, near the edge, and arced a shot over the backboard for a score. Then the rules were changed.
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - crackpot - 02-17-2018
I recall Stanford men doing this several years back at UCLA
Re: WBB: Interesting call in Ore/$C game - Viking_Guy - 02-17-2018
Two things further on officiating, beyond that, for the most part, they do a hard job well.
Two random opinions:
The first, that officials want to call a "balanced" game, even if the two teams are playing at completely different levels of physicality. Given Stanford under Tara and their style of play, that has generally worked in our disfavor. I cannot count the number of times I've looked up at the scoreboard, seen that our opponent has been called for 6 or 7 fouls (this especially happens the first time we enter the bonus, whether with halves or quarters), while the Cardinal has only been called for 3. I would turn to my fellow fans, and we both would know what was coming - a series of fouls against Stanford that, while possibly legitimate, were out of balance with the way the game had been officiated beforehand. This may be one way in which the quarter system helps us - the foul imbalance will generally be smaller when you hit the bonus, so it's not as obvious a prompt to call the game differently.
Happened against ODU in the semifinal that shall not be mentioned. Machanguana, Pinichero et al got more and more physical as the game went on, and yet it was Stanford that lost a key player to fouls, when Gator decided that Kristen Folkl really couldn't be doing the kind of things she could do, in blocking a ball from behind. Or against Colorado, both in the Sweet Sixteen game, and last week. Looking at the stats, Colorado, even with all of their fouling late to try to get back in the game, was only called for 28 team fouls, against 18 for Stanford. That was not reflective of the disparity in the style of play.
And it matters when and on whom those fouls are called. All of a sudden, Stanford's best defenders are being called for fouls that weren't called earlier in the period, and end up sitting on the bench late in the first half.
I've heard "the fouls even out" too often, when that shouldn't be the case.
And 81A, more specifically on Missy, as with Richie Ballesteros, the old Pac-10 men's ref - I always thought they were the kind of officials who would occasionally make a call because it offered them the opportunity to demonstrate their "ability to make the tough decision," by making a judgment call favoring the wrong side - a charge/block call that was 80% charge, and they call a block, or vice versa. That they WANT to be that person who is "strong enough" to go against the flow, make the unpopular call, etc. That, and they want to be at the center of things. Which I don't regard as a valuable trait in an official.
Just some ruminations, while waiting for the tip.
VG