Guns Up

[PhDhawk]

I've hated the way they review out of bounds plays since they started doing it. One guy clearly knocks the ball out of bounds by slapping it out of the second guy's hand, but the final frame of the replay shows that it was barely touching one fingertip of the second guy so they give the ball to the first guy's team. It's not the spirit of the rule and is not how it's called in every instance during most games.

That being said, this is how they've called these reviews for the entire time, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that they made this call in this instance. They've been reviewing plays like this for a long time.

Also, who really gives a shit? It was UVA vs TTU.

So what is the "spirit of the rule"? Rule 7 Section 1 Article 1 states that "The LAST player to touch the ball before the ball goes out of bounds caused the ball to go out of bounds, provided that the ball is out of bounds because it touched something other than a player who is out of bounds." Period. It has no spirit to my knowledge.

Applying some magical unwritten rule of "it only went out of bounds off me because you touched it" isnt a good idea. Imagine if that unwritten rule was applied universally. Do we now have to define which body parts are allowed and which are not? If Virginia tips the ball and it hits the TT player's foot or leg, that's off Texas Tech and Virginia gets the ball but not if it goes off the Tech player's hand last? That's an improvement to the current situation?!?

If player A is holding the ball. And player B slaps the ball out of his hand and the ball goes directly out of bounds. Possession goes to team A 100% of the time when it's not reviewed. It has never been considered the wrong call....ever, not by anyone. This has been the case since out of bounds became a thing. It's only on review where that is ever called the other direction. So...the same play is being called differently for 38 minutes than it is in the final two. When one player has his hands on the ball, and it gets slapped out, if you view it in super slow motion, one frame at a time, it's is often apparent that player A has contact with the ball in a frame after player B has lost contact with the ball, but clearly player B knocked it out of bounds.

I think the call was consistent with how it's reviews are called. I just don't think review should be used that way.

Review should be used to make sure a call wasn't egregiously made. If the review conclusively shows that the call was wrong it should be overturned.

I would make the hand a part of the ball, just like it is for a shooter in the NBA and HS rule books. So, if a player A has ball in hand and player B directly knocks it out of his hands and it goes directly out of bounds possession goes to player A's team. Since, that's how it's called for 95% of the game. I'd rather have the same call called all game. But I'm not on the rules committee. Though I should be.

[thisiskoz]

Think PhDs first paragraph nails it.

[Deleted User 89]

I'd rather have the same call called all game.

exactly...the game shouldn't be played (or called) differently just because it's the last 2 minutes or whatever

[ousdahl]

[twocoach]

You're all over the place now.

It's entirely arguable that the refs came to the right conclusion based on the video evidence. Of course my argument has been that we have the process absolutely wrong and that we're using technology in a way that it was never meant to be used.

Things should be adapted to make the game better. And, spare me your last paragraph. Is everyone supposed to reply to all of your sanctimonious posts with the NCAA, Bill Self and God's email addresses?

Maybe the rules committee will be driven by this call to add some clarification to exactly these types of situations, who knows. They meet every year to try to find ways to make the game better. Maybe they take PhD's advice and call the hand part of the ball in this type of incident, although I doubt they go down that slippery slope to introduce such ambiguity into replay.

We'll see. Regardless, it was a very e entertaining last two weekends of the tourney considering that KU was out. I am glad I changed course on my typical reaction to KU losing and continued to watch games. There were lots of incredibly entertaining games in the regionals and FF. Another good showing by the sport all in all.

Hopefully we hear about Grimes' decision soon and about KU getting some of these grad transfers in for a visit. I think we are going to need some instant impact players added to the roster for next year to end better than this year.

[PhDhawk]

DC has great advice.

[DCHawk1]

DC has great advice.

^^^^^^

[ousdahl]

He’s just here to help!

[twocoach]

DC has great advice.

Edited. Sorry you missed getting credit.

[DCHawk1]

DC has great advice.

Edited. Sorry you missed getting credit.

I do have great advice, though.

Just ask me.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Creepy, Mellinger reads my posts?

We’ve gone too far with replay.

We’ve gone too far in football. We’ve gone too far in baseball. And we’ve now sure as shoot gone way too far in basketball.

For as long as basketball has existed this is Texas Tech’s ball:

But now we are so married to technology and so terrified of some twerp saying Well Actually that we break these things down frame by frame like a Zapruder film to make a call that has never been made.

That ball was deflected out of bounds by the Virginia player. That it barely-maybe-only-if-you-go-super-slow-mo-at-the-right-angle grazed the bottom of the Texas Tech player’s finger has been inconsequential since the beginning of time.

If this happened in a pickup game and the Virginia player claimed it was his ball, the game would be over. There would be a riot. Punches would fly.

This is not throwing the ball off the opponent’s leg out of bounds. This is a common basketball play that has now been completely redone. This is a man stealing a base clean, but being called out after 3 minutes because the replay showed his foot came off the bag for 0.000001 seconds on the slide.

This is too much technology and not enough common sense. This is basic Spirit Of The Rule stuff here, and in a world in which there are already WAY too many long stoppages we’ve just invited more.

You would need to look hard to find someone more pro technology than me. These advancements have made our games more enjoyable to watch (on OLED screens), easier to understand (with tools like NFL’s Game Pass) and more interesting to analyze (FanGraphs, Baseball-Reference, Pro Football Focus, etc).

But we have to be the ones using the technology, and not allowing the technology to chew up our games.

Instant replay was adopted to correct obvious mistakes of the naked eye. It was never intended to create new calls that the naked eye never could have seen.

This is not an argument that the referees or stretched-past-the-point-of-recognition replay usage cost Texas Tech last night’s national championship game*. There are too many plays in a game, and besides, the officials were generally pretty good.

(*Though on the previous play, Tech was whistled for a foul when a Virginia player accidentally tripped a teammate.)

This is an argument about keeping games as enjoyable and fair and flowing as possible, about not breaking for 2 minutes every time someone in the arena disagrees with a call. Mostly, this is an argument to keep basic rules and calls in place, the same way we’ve enjoyed for decades, and not let our games be hijacked by frame-by-frame analysis.

This isn’t a fluke, either. Isn’t one minor misuse blown out of proportion because of the stage.

After all, the NFL just made non-calls reviewable.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-c ... 98539.html

[PhDhawk]

For years I've been railing against instant replay in almost every sport.

Every time I hear some asshole say, I just want them to get it right, or I don't care how long the review takes as long as they get the call right, I want to punch them in the face. so many cases where review doesn't mean they get it right...and not only that, but (especially in football) it changes the way games are officiated anyway.

The fact of the matter is, for all the reviews in all the sports, there are only probably 10% that are corrections to obviously blown calls. There are probably another 10-20% that are worth looking at a second time, just to make sure. The remaining ~75% are split between things that are wastes of time or things that are subjective both in real time as well as in review.

I think for basketball, it should be, you blow the whistle, the zebra on the sideline gets to look at two angles at half speed, and if it's not overwhelmingly in need of a reversal or change in call, play on.

[CrimsonNBlue]

MLS and FIFA are the closest to being right. VAR is used in the most limited of circumstances. Most everything is play on.

[ousdahl]

lulz

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1115455171440648192

[pdub]

Decent seats.

[ousdahl]

and remember that one time he was cheering on the Rockets in game 7?

Kiss of death.

[Mjl]

Trick question!

Bill Self is God.

Wow. I am curious if anyone else besides me gets the reference without looking it up. I didn't know there were others out there that have watched it multiple times.

[ousdahl]

Wait, what?

Airheads? Or super fan?

[Mjl]

Airheads.
What's super fan?

[DCHawk1]

lulz

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1115455171440648192

Trump was fucking right!