[CompSci87]

In the Indiana-UConn game, Missy had to decide whether this was a shot clock violation.
In this frame, the ball is still touching the player  In the next frame (showing 0:00), it isn't.

She ruled the call on the floor stands -- her call that the shot was off in time.
Actually, after reading the rules, I'm surprised Missy didn't rule this a violation.  I believe she should have.

Look closely.  (I'll explain later, if no one else explains the picture and the rule.)

In the picture it looks to me like just the edge of the motion blur of the hand is touching the ball. So it was touching at the start of the exposure, but not at the end. On the shot clock, only 00.1 shows. The additional segments that come on when the clock expires to change the 1 to 0 haven't lit up yet, or at least didn't light up early enough in the exposure to show noticeably.

So the way I see it, this frame confirms that the call of a good shot was correct. Or if you don't buy that the motion blur implies contact with the hand was fully lost before the end of the exposure, at least the frame doesn't prove the call was wrong.

Obviously you have a different theory. And I didn't read the rule. I'm interested to hear your explanation.

[CompSci87]

In the Indiana-UConn game, Missy had to decide whether this was a shot clock violation.
In this frame, the ball is still touching the player  In the next frame (showing 0:00), it isn't.

She ruled the call on the floor stands -- her call that the shot was off in time.
Actually, after reading the rules, I'm surprised Missy didn't rule this a violation.  I believe she should have.

Look closely.  (I'll explain later, if no one else explains the picture and the rule.)

In the picture it looks to me like just the edge of the motion blur of the hand is touching the ball. So it was touching at the start of the exposure, but not at the end. On the shot clock, only 00.1 shows. The additional segments that come on when the clock expires to change the 1 to 0 haven't lit up yet, or at least didn't light up early enough in the exposure to show noticeably.

So the way I see it, this frame confirms that the call of a good shot was correct. Or if you don't buy that the motion blur implies contact with the hand was fully lost before the end of the exposure, at least the frame doesn't prove the call was wrong.

Obviously you have a different theory. And I didn't read the rule. I'm interested to hear your explanation.