[M T]

This frame exhibits a rolling shutter effect. Basically, the top of the picture shows the scene a fraction of a second (on the order of 0.002) before the bottom of the picture.  Some camera sensor grids work by capturing the photons in each sensor pixel at different times, and reading the pixel's data sequentially across the scene on each line (or block of lines), with upper (blocks of) lines being read entirely before lower lines.  Also, remember that each pixel is exposed for some amount of time  (say, 0.01 seconds).   While the exposure of the top pixels starts (ends) before the exposure of the bottom pixels, at any instant in time, many scan lines are simultaneously exposed.

In this frame, the countdown clock shows "00.1" but there is some ghosting around the yellow numbers.  Among the possibilities is that it started to show "00.0" before the exposure of the pixels finished.  But since the brightness of the ghosting on the "00" is the same as on the ".1", I think that unlikely.

You can see a rectangle inside the boundary of the backboard that is the red-light signal for a shot-clock violation.  That rectangle is (energized) red along the bottom and an (unlit) white at the top.  The red line goes up the sides of the backboard seemingly unevenly.

By the time the camera sensor pulled the data from the pixels showing the bottom of the backboard, the red-light sensor was energized, meaning the shot-clock light had come on.   It also appears that the red line gets denser down the sides of the backboard, suggesting that the exposure of those pixels started before the red light came on.  The more time before the red light came on, the more exposure of the white (unenergized) and less of the red (energized).

The apparent difference between the left (higher) and right (lower) upper limits of the red light is due to the fact that the backboard is slanted relative to the frame.  When I draw a horizontal line from the top of the red line on the left to the top on the right, they are the same height.

The image of the hand-ball contact is in scan lines whose exposure ended after the red light was energized.  If one could determine that her hand was still touching the ball at the end of the exposure, then it should be a shot-clock violation.  But I can't.  The blur of the hand and the blur of the ball overlap, indicating that the two probably were in contact at the start of the exposure.

The image of the ball certainly looks distorted and stretched in a SE - NW line, suggesting motion in that direction during the exposure.  However, there are dark regions at the poles of a NE-SW line.  I'm not sure why.  Possibly some sharpening to show motion better by the camera?

Since the red-light was on, and you can't tell that the ball has left the hand, I would not have been surprised if Missy had called this a shot-clock violation.  I'm ok with her not overruling her call on the court that it was not a violation.

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.)

--
There was a foul called against Indiana on a UConn drive to the basket.  The announcers were perplexed because the block was clean.  But the endline camera view (virtually the same view as Missy) shows that the Indiana player had an arm block on the driver early in the drive at the foul line, and then had her hand on the driver's shoulder a step later.   The foul was called for contact before the block.  The announcers focused only on (non) contact at the time of the block.

It seems that every play can have a foul called.

[M T]

This frame exhibits a rolling shutter effect. Basically, the top of the picture shows the scene a fraction of a second (on the order of 0.002) before the bottom of the picture.  Some camera sensor grids work by capturing the photons in each sensor pixel at different times, and reading the pixel's data sequentially across the scene on each line (or block of lines), with upper (blocks of) lines being read entirely before lower lines.  Also, remember that each pixel is exposed for some amount of time  (say, 0.01 seconds).   While the exposure of the top pixels starts (ends) before the exposure of the bottom pixels, at any instant in time, many scan lines are simultaneously exposed.

In this frame, the countdown clock shows "00.1" but there is some ghosting around the yellow numbers.  Among the possibilities is that it started to show "00.0" before the exposure of the pixels finished.  But since the brightness of the ghosting on the "00" is the same as on the ".1", I think that unlikely.

You can see a rectangle inside the boundary of the backboard that is the red-light signal for a shot-clock violation.  That rectangle is (energized) red along the bottom and an (unlit) white at the top.  The red line goes up the sides of the backboard seemingly unevenly.

By the time the camera sensor pulled the data from the pixels showing the bottom of the backboard, the red-light sensor was energized, meaning the shot-clock light had come on.   It also appears that the red line gets denser down the sides of the backboard, suggesting that the exposure of those pixels started before the red light came on.  The more time before the red light came on, the more exposure of the white (unenergized) and less of the red (energized).

The apparent difference between the left (higher) and right (lower) upper limits of the red light is due to the fact that the backboard is slanted relative to the frame.  When I draw a horizontal line from the top of the red line on the left to the top on the right, they are the same height.

The image of the hand-ball contact is in scan lines whose exposure ended after the red light was energized.  If one could determine that her hand was still touching the ball at the end of the exposure, then it should be a shot-clock violation.  But I can't.  The blur of the hand and the blur of the ball overlap, indicating that the two probably were in contact at the start of the exposure.

The image of the ball certainly looks distorted and stretched in a SE - NW line, suggesting motion in that direction during the exposure.  However, there are dark regions at the poles of a NE-SW line.  I'm not sure why.  Possibly some sharpening to show motion better by the camera?

Since the red-light was on, and you can't tell that the ball has left the hand, I would not have been surprised if Missy had called this a shot-clock violation.  I'm ok with her not overruling her call on the court that it was not a violation.

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.)

--
There was a foul called against Indiana on a UConn drive to the basket.  The announcers were perplexed because the block was clean.  But the endline camera view (virtually the same view as Missy) shows that the Indiana player had an arm block on the driver early in the drive at the foul line, and then had her hand on the driver's shoulder a step later.   The foul was called for contact before the block.  The announcers focused only on (non) contact at the time of the block.

It seems that every play can have a foul called.