PDA

View Full Version : DBR's take on the blown call



Eakane
04-08-2015, 11:13 AM
It's obvious to everyone that the ref's blew the call, but equally obvious that they did not have the advantage of the same angle that CBS did.
The question is, why not? If the objective is to get the call right, and the technology exists to do so, why must the NCAA limit themselves to "NCAA sanctioned instant replay machines" or some such nonsense.

Whenever the Rules committee meets, this must be addressed.

PS I've checked multiple parallel universes, and Duke still wins even if Wisconsin gets the ball.

Duke95
04-08-2015, 11:19 AM
I say we start with the no call on the Wisconsin elbow pushing Winslow out of bounds.

CameronBornAndBred
04-08-2015, 11:21 AM
PS I've checked multiple parallel universes, and Duke still wins even if Wisconsin gets the ball.
In those universes, did we win in '99?

Orange&BlackSheep
04-08-2015, 11:25 AM
I say we start with the no call on the Wisconsin elbow pushing Winslow out of bounds.

Oftentimes a ref will consciously or subconsciously let something like that go because he did not want to call a foul. So when forced to reveal the "facts", there is no consideration of the fact that the ref would have chosen to call a foul vs out of bounds since the ref is not allowed to make that decision when viewing the monitor. I can't tell you how many times in corporate games the ref literally asked someone complaining whether he would have rather a foul be called than whatever was overlooked (because the ref was trying to keep play moving).

CDu
04-08-2015, 11:36 AM
The review process is a tricky one and clearly needs to be revised. The problem, though, is that it doesn't allow for all revisions. For example, let's take the following scenarios:

1. Missed shot, Player A is in position to rebound. Player B (without touching the ball directly) goes over the back of Player A and/or slaps the back of Player A's arm/hand, which causes the ball to go out of bounds. Official, rather than calling a foul, simply awards the ball to Player A (incorrectly). If it then goes to replay, Player B's team gets the ball because you can't retroactively assess a foul.

2. Player A is driving baseline toward the basket. Player B bumps Player A such that Player A steps on the end line slightly. Official overlooks this and does not call either the foul or the out of bounds. If reviewed, Player B's team gets the ball because you can't retroactively call a foul.

3. Player A has the ball. Player B clearly fouls Player A, causing Player A to lose the ball out of bounds. Official merely gives the ball to Player A's team rather than calling the foul. Again, if it goes to replay, Player B's team gets the ball, because you can't retroactively call a foul.

Currently, I don't think scenario 2 is reviewable at all, so maybe that's moot. But scenario 1 and 3 happen ALL THE TIME. So the current replay rules would create havoc with the way refs handle late-game situations. Ultimately, the honus is on the refs to make the correct call in the first place, but as is the replay system is flawed in that it can possibly prevent the correct outcome anyway depending upon what the officials do.

Eakane
04-08-2015, 11:37 AM
I didn't start the thread to renew the debate about other blown calls. I think we can all agree that the officiating throughout the tournament was phenomenally bad. From at least the UCLA-Texas game through the natty. The point is that the technology exists and should be utilized.

roywhite
04-08-2015, 11:46 AM
I didn't start the thread to renew the debate about other blown calls. I think we can all agree that the officiating throughout the tournament was phenomenally bad. From at least the UCLA-Texas game through the natty. The point is that the technology exits and should be utilized.

Yes, the technology exists, and yes, we want to see it called correctly.

But, at what length is the review process and how many calls get minutely reviewed?
Personally, I dislike long reviews that disrupt the game. If the technology wasn't there to produce that last view on CBS with super slo-mo of Winslow's finger tip re-directing the ball, what would have happened? The review would have been inconclusive, the original call would have stood, and there likely would have been no big controversy.

Is it practical to have limits on the number of calls reviewed and the time each takes? The last few minutes of close games often seem to stretch out endlessly with timeouts, clock reviews, etc. A system needs to be fair and accurate, but also should be considered in the context of the flow of the game.

Lar77
04-08-2015, 11:52 AM
Oftentimes a ref will consciously or subconsciously let something like that go because he did not want to call a foul. So when forced to reveal the "facts", there is no consideration of the fact that the ref would have chosen to call a foul vs out of bounds since the ref is not allowed to make that decision when viewing the monitor. I can't tell you how many times in corporate games the ref literally asked someone complaining whether he would have rather a foul be called than whatever was overlooked (because the ref was trying to keep play moving).

Great point that you CDu and Duke95 have made. Several refs I have talked to in the past have been consistent in saying that TV replays tend to focus on one issue and not the total picture before the ref (the same happens in football, but basketball has a lot more judgment calls). Yes there are blown calls because of the speed of the game, but refs are trained to use their judgment. Obviously, the technology can be better, but then give the refs more opportunity to use their judgment. As long as the game is fairly called within reason and the refs don't make it all about themselves, I'm OK with it.

CameronBornAndBred
04-08-2015, 11:53 AM
Yes, the technology exists, and yes, we want to see it called correctly.

But, at what length is the review process and how many calls get minutely reviewed?
Personally, I dislike long reviews that disrupt the game. If the technology wasn't there to produce that last view on CBS with super slo-mo of Winslow's finger tip re-directing the ball, what would have happened? The review would have been inconclusive, the original call would have stood, and there likely would have been no big controversy.

Is it practical to have limits on the number of calls reviewed and the time each takes? The last few minutes of close games often seem to stretch out endlessly with timeouts, clock reviews, etc. A system needs to be fair and accurate, but also should be considered in the context of the flow of the game.
It would be interesting to compare a tournament game played in the early 80's with a game played now, and see how much longer they take. We've all been on both sides of the process, too. Watching an official (rightfully or still wrongfully) awarding the other team the ball. Love it when it's in our favor, loathe it when it's not. However, I could happily return to the days when we simply trusted the refs with their calls on the court, and keep the flow of the game continuous.
Bright side, at least basketball isn't as bad as football. There is nothing worse than hearing after every single TD, "The previous play is under review." If bball did that, games would last four hours.

_Gary
04-08-2015, 12:02 PM
In those universes, did we win in '99?

Sadly, Duke won that '99 game in every universe except ours. :p

Lar77
04-08-2015, 12:05 PM
Yes, the technology exists, and yes, we want to see it called correctly.

But, at what length is the review process and how many calls get minutely reviewed?
Personally, I dislike long reviews that disrupt the game. If the technology wasn't there to produce that last view on CBS with super slo-mo of Winslow's finger tip re-directing the ball, what would have happened? The review would have been inconclusive, the original call would have stood, and there likely would have been no big controversy.

Is it practical to have limits on the number of calls reviewed and the time each takes? The last few minutes of close games often seem to stretch out endlessly with timeouts, clock reviews, etc. A system needs to be fair and accurate, but also should be considered in the context of the flow of the game.

Could it be something like football, challenge (like Bo did) and use a timeout if wrong and limit review time?

cruxer
04-08-2015, 12:10 PM
If there's going to be a review process, then clearly the best technology should be used to prevent a situation where TV viewers have a better angle than the actual reviewing officials responsible for making the call. Officials should also be able to review common fouls and they should be able to stay with a call that may seem like it should be overturned by using the simple explanation that there was non-foul contact that created an advantage that only became evident after a couple of seconds.

In the ebb-and-flow of a game, it's preferable for officials to let some contact go if it doesn't create an advantage one way or the other. That's obviously a judgment call, and sometimes that judgment is incorrect. I think on both controversial plays in the 2nd half, Justise was contacted by the defender and the official let it go because he didn't deem that contact to give an advantage. Both times, the official ended up being wrong, but I'm guessing the out-of-bounds calls (or non-calls) went the way they did because the ref instinctively recognized this back and forth. Any replay system that can't take all of that context into account is bound to be worse than having no replay at all.

-c

Channing
04-08-2015, 02:08 PM
On Mike and Mike this morning they played a clip from John Adams (??) on Tim Brando's show where Adams said the refs didn't have the advantage of seeing the indisputable evidence. He also suggested that he thought about buzzing the refs once he saw that angle but before play resumed. Golic made the comment that he has looked into this with his sources and the refs absolutely have the benefit of all the replays CBS had, but that the clear replay was one of the last ones shown and the refs operate the box like a DVR and may have made up their mind before seeing that.

No question Duke got the benefit of that call and it was at a crucial time, but I also thought Decker got away with a pretty clear walk in the first half on a whirling layup that didn't get called. It was bad both ways, Duke happened to get the benefit of a key, reviewed call in crunch time that should have been overturned but wasnt.

DBFAN
04-08-2015, 05:10 PM
On Mike and Mike this morning they played a clip from John Adams (??) on Tim Brando's show where Adams said the refs didn't have the advantage of seeing the indisputable evidence. He also suggested that he thought about buzzing the refs once he saw that angle but before play resumed. Golic made the comment that he has looked into this with his sources and the refs absolutely have the benefit of all the replays CBS had, but that the clear replay was one of the last ones shown and the refs operate the box like a DVR and may have made up their mind before seeing that.

No question Duke got the benefit of that call and it was at a crucial time, but I also thought Decker got away with a pretty clear walk in the first half on a whirling layup that didn't get called. It was bad both ways, Duke happened to get the benefit of a key, reviewed call in crunch time that should have been overturned but wasnt.

The only prob I have here is calling it a Key play. Doesn't every foul and non foul have impact on game. If the travel is called and those 2 points don't happen then our lead is prob bigger on the Winslow play, thus having much less impact. Or we could point to other things like foul differential in first half, which obviously had an impact. If the refs actually called fouls on Emeka Kaminsky then the game also changes, or if the bear hug with no play on the ball was called a Flag1 like it was supposed to, well you get my point. I'm not disagreeing here just that all fouls are equal not just the ones ESPN thinks had consequences

Blue in the Face
04-08-2015, 05:35 PM
FWIW, another NCAA official refuted Adams' comments, and said the officials did see all the angles during their review, although he said they may not have seen the critical one magnified.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12648171/ncaa-vp-says-officials-actually-did-see-replay-angle-disputed-bounds-call-duke-wisconsin-title-game

wilko
04-08-2015, 05:41 PM
So what?!?!?!
Right team won....

Boozer was fouled on the put-back
Langdon was fouled on the shot attempt.

What we got was a little Justise

ramdevil
04-08-2015, 05:53 PM
Let's just crowd source all refereeing. In all sports. Write an app that let's the fans make all the calls. This could be done while watching on tv or in person. Then we can get rid of the refs.

Listen to Quants
04-08-2015, 06:03 PM
Sadly, Duke won that '99 game in every universe except ours. :p
Good point. Still, I'll take this Universe as Duke loses the 91 semifinal in what, 90% of them? I loved that one more than I hated '99. The incredibly lucky thing, for me anyway, is that as a Duke fan I have the luxury of the 'large numbers' allowing chance to even out. Final Four after Final Four, just wow. Celebrate.

JetpackJesus
04-08-2015, 06:05 PM
Let's just crowd source all refereeing. In all sports. Write an app that let's the fans make all the calls. This could be done while watching on tv or in person. Then we can get rid of the refs.

It would be just like golf.

OldPhiKap
04-08-2015, 06:30 PM
So what?!?!?!
Right team won....

Boozer was fouled on the put-back
Langdon was fouled on the shot attempt.

What we got was a little Justise

Yup, and those were buzzer plays.

Man up, Bo. You got outcoached, own it.

ncexnyc
04-08-2015, 07:37 PM
I'm not sure why some people insist on discussing the calls, the title belongs to Duke plain and simple. There won't be any type of appeal or review so who cares what anyone thinks.

As a fan base we don't have to justify what happened on Monday night the more people on this board talk about it, the more we appear guilty of winning when we shouldn't have. If the clowns over at IC, Big Blue, or wherever want to beat a dead horse then let them, at the end of the day the hardware will still be sitting in Durham.

Duke95
04-08-2015, 07:40 PM
Did Winslow step out of bounds? Yes.
Did Winslow touch the ball last? Yes.

Did Wisconsin benefit from a shot clock violation in the UK game? Yes.
Was one of the calls against Okafor a complete non-foul? Yes.

Look, I'm fine with analyzing calls that go our way, as long as we give the same attention to calls that go our opponents' way.

The fact that calls that go our way get more attention is a function of the fact that we're generally disliked by opposing fans because a) they have a LOT more fans, and b) we generally win more than they do, and c) our coach is perhaps the greatest college coach of all time, and d) we're a small private university battling against huge in-state schools.

Dukehky
04-08-2015, 07:41 PM
Duke gets all the calls, all the time. The NCAA wants Duke to win, ESPN wants Duke to win (even though its run by a carolina guy). It's all rigged gosh darn it.

If all of that is true...


I'll take it. Who gives a damn about their missed call? They let the 8th guy on our bench continuously tear them a new butt hole, they deserved to lose, and we deserved to win. And the way each team acted afterwards supports that notion vehemently.

wilko
04-08-2015, 08:08 PM
Duke gets all the calls, all the time. The NCAA wants Duke to win, ESPN wants Duke to win (even though its run by a carolina guy). It's all rigged gosh darn it.

If all of that is true...

I'll take it. Who gives a damn about their missed call? They let the 8th guy on our bench continuously tear them a new butt hole, they deserved to lose, and we deserved to win. And the way each team acted afterwards supports that notion vehemently.

Totally on board with your wavelength.
I did NOT watch last yrs game... (I checked in for the closing minutes). Not giving them the satisfaction of viewers if Duke isnt playing..... Now this yr Duke is in it and its one of the most watched finals in 20ys (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/duke-wisconsin-championship-draws-largest-tv-rating-in-18-years-161719241.html).

Point is it pays to have Duke win. And Im good with that....

wilko
04-08-2015, 08:24 PM
AND while I'm on a roll....

Did anyone ever think Duke would win a Natty where they did NOT get a single charge call or flop -
Not one whisper of this.....

America - you are welcome!


We are still keeping the '15 Championship

weezie
04-08-2015, 08:32 PM
...we're generally disliked by opposing fans because a) they have a LOT more fans, and b) we generally win more than they do, and c) our coach is perhaps the greatest college coach of all time, and d) we're a small private university battling against huge in-state schools.

You forgot that we're better looking and great dancers. Everybody always forgets that. :cool:

Newton_14
04-08-2015, 08:50 PM
So what?!?!?!
Right team won....

Boozer was fouled on the put-back
Langdon was fouled on the shot attempt.

What we got was a little Justise

Totally agree. Folks there is only one strategy to take and I am pleading with all of you to take it with me. Trying to counter or reason with the haters is not going to work. It never has and it never will. As I have shared before, I am surrounded at work by UNC alums and fans. They have now given up on digging at me with the Winslow toe and finger, and the number of fouls called on Wisc in the 2nd half. Why? Because when they brought it up yesterday and today I said a mixture of the following at various times.

them: K whined at halftime Interview and refs screwed Wisc in 2nd half. Me: Well yeah, and I am glad. They only called 2 fouls on Wisc in 1st half. So K used a code word during that halftime interview and when CBS heard the code word they relayed that to the officials and they called the 2nd half as directed by K and the NCAA. Don't you wish your coach had that power?

them: Refs gave the game to Duke on the two plays where Winslow stepped on endline and his finger touched the ball. Me: Yeah, and I am laughing all the way to the trophy case. Scoreboard and this shirt I am wearing is all I give a rip about.

They don't know how to respond to that. Honestly. They either shut up, change the subject and walk away. Meanwhile I am wearing a different championship shirt everyday the rest of this week.

The other thing?
Them: Well Duke will suck next year cause K sold his soul to the One and Done. Me: Yeah and I will be over there in my office, just like Christian Laettner, resting on the laurels of yet another National Championship.

So embrace the hate. Laugh at them. Agree with them. Tell them K controls CBS, the NCAA, the refs, the NBA, USA Basketball, Congress, and 3 foreign Countries. Don't try to argue with them or reason with them. You won't win the argument.

One other thing. While it is sad the Bo Ryan did not credit, congratulate, or applaud K or Duke in a single comment in any post game interview, presser or otherwise, who cares? It made him look petty and small, and the National, Regional, and Local Media guys are absolutely lambasting him. He knows he got outcoached and his players got outplayed.

Jim3k
04-09-2015, 02:59 AM
Time is reporting (http://time.com/3814713/ncaa-championship-duke-wisconsin-refs-controversial-call/) that the refs did indeed have the angle and the view that Adams said that they didn't.

And, the reason they didn't overturn the call was because the evidence was not indisputable favoring a reversal. To my view this was always correct, no matter what the announcers said. I didn't see the ball change trajectory, even in slo-mo. Maybe a fingernail grazed it, maybe not. But the ref called it in real time as he saw it. No waiting or hesitancy. This was a correct result and I don't understand all the gnashing of teeth.

subzero02
04-09-2015, 03:38 AM
Time is reporting (http://time.com/3814713/ncaa-championship-duke-wisconsin-refs-controversial-call/) that the refs did indeed have the angle and the view that Adams said that they didn't.

And, the reason they didn't overturn the call was because the evidence was not indisputable favoring a reversal. To my view this was always correct, no matter what the announcers said. I didn't see the ball change trajectory, even in slo-mo. Maybe a fingernail grazed it, maybe not. But the ref called it in real time as he saw it. No waiting or hesitancy. This was a correct result and I don't understand all the gnashing of teeth.

The article says that the refs likely left the monitor before viewing the magnified version of the angle that was shown to cbs viewers. The ball clearly goes off Winslow in the magnified replay.

cspan37421
04-09-2015, 05:59 AM
At the very least, don't let it come up without pointing out the first half not-called travel on a MADE basket by Wisconsin.

CameronBornAndBred
04-09-2015, 08:33 AM
Sadly, Duke won that '99 game in every universe except ours. :p
Awesome...now we can see what that banner looks like.

The staggeringly complex LHC ‘atom smasher’ at the CERN centre in Geneva, Switzerland, will be fired up to its highest energy levels ever in a bid to detect - or even create - miniature black holes.


If successful a completely new universe will be revealed – rewriting not only the physics books but the philosophy books too.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/565315/Scientists-at-Large-Hadron-Collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-UNIVERSE-in-days

NYBri
04-09-2015, 08:49 AM
In baseball, when is a pitch a strike? When the ump says it's a strike.

In this case, it was Duke ball because the ref said so.

There are literally thousands of calls in a season, any one of which could be called "pivotal," but that's all part of the game.

I, for one, would hate to see every frickin' call reviewed. Play the game. Keep it moving. Duke ball. Move on.

Sixthman
04-09-2015, 09:16 AM
At the very least, don't let it come up without pointing out the first half not-called travel on a MADE basket by Wisconsin.

The whole national conversation about one or two plays is absurd. The fact of the matter is no one ever talks about the calls that go against the winner because there is no reason to. I've watched the game four times now (shooting for five). I've got a two and a three made by wisconsin after obvious travels and one other two on a borderline travel. If we talked about these three errors to the exclusion of all others, Duke should have been ahead by so much that the plays we are talking about don't matter. I also saw several plays where duke was fouled while scoring with no call balanced by a couple of fouls called on Duke shots which I think were questionable. As others have mentioned, Winslow was clearly fouled on the finger tip play and arguably fouled on the toe play. There were also two plays, one on each team, which should have been reviewed for flagrant fouls but got no attention. The only thoughtful response to all of this is SO WHAT. The officials for the game were some informed person's choice of the best available, they did their best, there are factors behind calls and no calls that I cannot see from my sofa even when sober, and, of course, there is no reasonable expectation of perfection from officials. Oh by the way, it was a great game, and would have been a great game -- which I would have watched only once -- had we instead lost by five.

flyingdutchdevil
04-09-2015, 09:35 AM
Duke gets all the calls, all the time. The NCAA wants Duke to win, ESPN wants Duke to win (even though its run by a carolina guy). It's all rigged gosh darn it.

If all of that is true...


I'll take it. Who gives a damn about their missed call? They let the 8th guy on our bench continuously tear them a new butt hole, they deserved to lose, and we deserved to win. And the way each team acted afterwards supports that notion vehemently.

+1. It bothers me a little that many on this board are trying to rationalize "we got a few calls our way, but Wisconsin also got a few calls their way." Who cares!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

Reffing is unbias, human-error filled, and clean. It does affect the game, but harping about reffing (win or lose) is about as productive as cleaning the lint out of my belly button: it's fun, but really serves no purpose.

Furthermore, if Duke won because of reffing, I'll take it (and I don't think we did. It was a mixture of insane offense by Grayson, ridiculous shooting by Tyus, exceptional defense by M Jones and AJ, and phenomenal coaching by K).

duke79
04-09-2015, 09:41 AM
In baseball, when is a pitch a strike? When the ump says it's a strike.

In this case, it was Duke ball because the ref said so.

There are literally thousands of calls in a season, any one of which could be called "pivotal," but that's all part of the game.

I, for one, would hate to see every frickin' call reviewed. Play the game. Keep it moving. Duke ball. Move on.

I agree with you. I think people are getting way TOO worked up over this miss-call (and now watching the play in super slow motion, it is clear to me that Justice DID touch the ball last before it went out of bounds). When I was watching the game and they re-played the sequence over and over from different angles, I had a hard time telling whether or not he actually touched the ball. Maybe my eyes are bad or my TV is too small (32"), but I couldn't tell for sure, so I thought the refs made the right call at the time.

Furthermore, all the people worked up by this miss-call might have a better argument if that the game had been tied with maybe 30 seconds or so left to play. But with Duke up by 5, and the time left on the clock, I think the odds were overwhelming that Duke would have won the game, even if Wisconsin had gotten the ball back on that play. The fact is they weren't playing well (for which Bo blames the refs??) the last 10 minutes or so and Duke had most of the momentum at that point in the game. I really Duke would have won, no matter which way that call went !!

MCFinARL
04-09-2015, 10:00 AM
I agree with you. I think people are getting way TOO worked up over this miss-call (and now watching the play in super slow motion, it is clear to me that Justice DID touch the ball last before it went out of bounds). When I was watching the game and they re-played the sequence over and over from different angles, I had a hard time telling whether or not he actually touched the ball. Maybe my eyes are bad or my TV is too small (32"), but I couldn't tell for sure, so I thought the refs made the right call at the time.

Furthermore, all the people worked up by this miss-call might have a better argument if that the game had been tied with maybe 30 seconds or so left to play. But with Duke up by 5, and the time left on the clock, I think the odds were overwhelming that Duke would have won the game, even if Wisconsin had gotten the ball back on that play. The fact is they weren't playing well (for which Bo blames the refs??) the last 10 minutes or so and Duke had most of the momentum at that point in the game. I really Duke would have won, no matter which way that call went !!

Amen to all of this. The refs spent a fair amount of time at the monitor reviewing that call. If they didn't see the slo-mo that is fueling the wrong call discussion in that time, so be it. Do we want to slow down the game even more? For that matter, why not just review every single out of bounds call for the entire game, to make sure they are all right? Quite possibly sometime in the first half slo-mo replay could detect some tiny error in a call that wasn't obvious to the naked eye. We could have basketball games that take 4 hours--but every call would be correct. Sounds great. :roll eyes:

And, yes, the call came when Duke was already up 5. Bad calls didn't give Grayson Allen a lane or Tyus Jones a killer 3; they didn't force Wisconsin into a shot clock violation late in the game. Better play by Duke than Wisconsin down the stretch did those things. At worst, the missed call denied Wisconsin one more opportunity to climb back out of the hole they dug for themselves--but the odds were clearly against them winning at that point.

captmojo
04-09-2015, 10:46 AM
I guess we are the last to know that all referees, in all games, Even the ones that Duke is not a contestant in, have a get together meeting to discuss how every possible situation can be of benefit to the Duke team.
Some Questions Frequently Asked:
If a plane falls from the sky, how can we relate this toward an advantage for K?
If a train leaves Boston at 2:15, heading west, how many points will Duke win by?
If Roy Williams has two players leave early for the draft, how many Duke players will be allowed to flop?
Will a traveling violation against Kentucky cause a video review in the championship game?
If a tree falls in Botswana, will it allow more value to a Duke made basket?

Many others, too numerous to mention.

Scorp4me
04-09-2015, 10:57 AM
Time is reporting (http://time.com/3814713/ncaa-championship-duke-wisconsin-refs-controversial-call/) that the refs did indeed have the angle and the view that Adams said that they didn't.

And, the reason they didn't overturn the call was because the evidence was not indisputable favoring a reversal. To my view this was always correct, no matter what the announcers said. I didn't see the ball change trajectory, even in slo-mo. Maybe a fingernail grazed it, maybe not. But the ref called it in real time as he saw it. No waiting or hesitancy. This was a correct result and I don't understand all the gnashing of teeth.

I couldn't agree more Jim3k. If the refs had called it off Winslow I would have had no problem with them sticking with that call as well. The fact is there was not indisputable evidence either way and the call should have stood as called. It's like in football when the refs comes back and says the call stands or is confirmed. Either way the call remains the same, but sometimes you just can't overturn it.



The article says that the refs likely left the monitor before viewing the magnified version of the angle that was shown to cbs viewers. The ball clearly goes off Winslow in the magnified replay.

I saw the video during the game and have watched the video again and this idea that the "ball clearly goes off Winslow" just isn't true. The announcers said the ball changed direction or some other garbage and there was no change in angle or reduction in rotation. Even in the magnified blowed up frame I could easily argue it's not touching. The fact is the call should have stood as the refs called it. I think in real time it was the likely call to make and in review it was the right call to stick with.

captmojo
04-09-2015, 11:04 AM
In baseball, when is a pitch a strike? When the ump says it's a strike.



Well.....maybe not.

I co-worker of mine from many (ahem) years ago, was once a pitcher in the Baltimore Orioles system. He told me once of a pre-seasonal game he was on the mound for, against the Minnesota Twins. The batter was Rod Carew. He had fouled a couple of pitches off, and the next delivery was a curve ball that he says painted the bottom-outside corner of the strike zone. "Ball!" He said he never knew he could jump so high and far. He knew that he had just made the perfect pitch that should have been called a strike. Even Earl Weaver was excited about the pitch made by a perennial minor leaguer, though he stayed in the dugout. His catcher complained, then walked out to the mound to explain to him that the Umpire had let him understand...
"When you throw a strike, Mr. Carew will let you know."

rasputin
04-09-2015, 11:12 AM
Well.....maybe not.

I co-worker of mine from many (ahem) years ago, was once a pitcher in the Baltimore Orioles system. He told me once of a pre-seasonal game he was on the mound for, against the Minnesota Twins. The batter was Rod Carew. He had fouled a couple of pitches off, and the next delivery was a curve ball that he says painted the bottom-outside corner of the strike zone. "Ball!" He said he never knew he could jump so high and far. He knew that he had just made the perfect pitch that should have been called a strike. Even Earl Weaver was excited about the pitch made by a perennial minor leaguer, though he stayed in the dugout. His catcher complained, then walked out to the mound to explain to him that the Umpire had let him understand...
"When you throw a strike, Mr. Carew will let you know."

That version of the story is a re-run of an incident two generations earlier. That quote usually goes, "When you throw a strike, Mr. Hornsby will let you know." I think the umpire was the legendary Bill Klem.

roquin
04-09-2015, 11:46 AM
In baseball, when is a pitch a strike? When the ump says it's a strike.

In this case, it was Duke ball because the ref said so.

There are literally thousands of calls in a season, any one of which could be called "pivotal," but that's all part of the game.

I, for one, would hate to see every frickin' call reviewed. Play the game. Keep it moving. Duke ball. Move on.


To add more color to your first couple comments, the quotation that springs to mind immediately is the story repeated in Weick's Social Psychology of Organizing (1979), originally taken from Simons' (1976) Persuasion.

"The story goes that three umpires disagreed about the task of calling balls and strikes. The first one said, 'I calls them as they is.' The second one said, 'I calls them as I sees them.' The third and cleverest umpire said 'They ain't nothin' till I calls them'"

Mal
04-09-2015, 11:46 AM
+1. It bothers me a little that many on this board are trying to rationalize "we got a few calls our way, but Wisconsin also got a few calls their way." Who cares!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

We're not rationalizing, I don't think. At least in my case, I'm enjoying laughing at all the Badger fans and Duke haters (redundant this week, I know) losing their collective you know what over the referees. Pointing out amongst ourselves that we also lost on a number of borderline calls over the course of the game, and then having a thread that tries to address the legitimate issue of if we're going to have video review how do we get it right, is not handwringing out of a sense of guilt.

Billy Dat
04-09-2015, 01:41 PM
AND while I'm on a roll....

Did anyone ever think Duke would win a Natty where they did NOT get a single charge call or flop -
Not one whisper of this.....

America - you are welcome!


We are still keeping the '15 Championship

On this point, and I only bring it up because I have watched the replay a bunch of times and laugh every time...

With 7:29 left, Duje Dukan tried to back Tyus down into the paint and Tyus sold an excellent charge. Wisconsin was up 54-52 at the time.

The humor comes from what happened next. I can only imagine, based on the look on his face, that Dukan must have said something off color to Tyus because Tyus could then be seen, face away from the camera but toward Dukan, saying something back.

The camera angle then changed and you could clearly see Dukan calling Tyus a common pejorative for a female dog.

Tyus, again his face turned away from the camera must have said something back because Dukan's eyes went narrow and he said, "What?!?!" and then both headed back to their respective benches for a TV timeout.

Out of the timeout, Tyus stuck a jumper to tie it up. Good times.

subzero02
04-09-2015, 02:13 PM
I couldn't agree more Jim3k. If the refs had called it off Winslow I would have had no problem with them sticking with that call as well. The fact is there was not indisputable evidence either way and the call should have stood as called. It's like in football when the refs comes back and says the call stands or is confirmed. Either way the call remains the same, but sometimes you just can't overturn it.




I saw the video during the game and have watched the video again and this idea that the "ball clearly goes off Winslow" just isn't true. The announcers said the ball changed direction or some other garbage and there was no change in angle or reduction in rotation. Even in the magnified blowed up frame I could easily argue it's not touching. The fact is the call should have stood as the refs called it. I think in real time it was the likely call to make and in review it was the right call to stick with.

Watch the replay again and don't look at the ball, look at Winslow's fingertips... They give slightly from contacting the ball. This isn't shown until the last few moments of cbs's replay sequence. When CBS switches back to a live shot you can see the refs have already walked away from the monitor. I believe the scenario described by the article, that the refs saw the same angles as the cbs viewing audience but walked away from the monitor before viewing the zoomed in shot that showed the ball going off Winslow's finger tip. I think it was a big play but both teams had opportunities before that call and after. The team that played the best won; missed calls are part of the game, even missed calls that have been reviewed.

pfernsten
04-09-2015, 03:00 PM
There seems to be a near-universal consensus that the refs blew the call, and the ball went out of bounds after being brushed by Winslow's fingers. But I am not entirely convinced. Like Scorp4me above, after watching the replay numerous times, I still cannot see any deflection in the trajectory of the ball. If there was give in Winslow's fingers from contacting the ball, as subzero02 suggests, then I would expect to see some change in the trajectory or rotation of the ball. While I cannot see any clear gap between Winslow's fingers and the ball, what I suspect may have happened was that Winslow's fingers were actually slightly behind the curvature of the ball with respect to the position of the camera. So there would appear to be no gap between fingers and ball or even the appearance of some give in the fingers without actually contacting the ball. In any case, without any deflection of the ball, I can't see that the replay provides the indisputable evidence required to reverse the initial call. In any case, it doesn't matter now. The right team won and almost certainly still would have, even if the call had gone the other way.

Bike4Fun
04-10-2015, 05:48 AM
....In any case, without any deflection of the ball, I can't see that the replay provides the indisputable evidence required to reverse the initial call. .....
I agree with this, but I want one of our physics professors to confirm it. Unless a ball has absolutely zero rotation with a touch perfectly in line with its flight (helping the ball to continue in the exact same direction), I don't see how a touch could be done without a change in flight of the ball. Now, maybe the change in flight was so small as to be imperceptible, but that would be disputable evidence.

MarkD83
04-10-2015, 07:13 AM
There was a missed call in the Robert Morris / North Florida game, which the NCAA reviewed and the victory has now been awarded to North Florida. Since we all know North Florida would have beaten Duke, Coach K has been asked to return the National Championship trophy. :)

neuro
04-10-2015, 07:46 AM
Given the force needed for a finger to deflect in the way it did (i.e. hyperextending the finger), I would expect there to be a clear change in the balls path or rotation or probably both. This is as opposed to a finger deflection where the finger is pushed/flexed towards the palm, which would potentially require little force.

In theory, couldn't one use the video and quantify the rotation from the balls seams, and see if there was any change pre/post finger touch? It would be a fun project for anyone with the skill and tools to do it. Which is certainly not me.

For what it's worth, I think that it's unlikely he touched the ball. :)

moonpie23
04-10-2015, 08:00 AM
i think he touched it....seems to be a slight change on ball direction......if the score had been tied, and we weren't owning them, maybe i'd feel different...

75Crazie
04-10-2015, 08:11 AM
The thing I focus on is ball rotation, both direction and speed ... and I cannot see any change in either attribute. There is a mathematical possibility that Winslow's finger could have touched the ball in such a manner that neither direction nor speed of rotation would have changed ... but that is extremely unlikely. My conclusion is that he did not touch the ball and that any camera shot that makes it appear that he did is a result of a two-dimensional view.

howardlander
04-10-2015, 08:54 AM
I re watched the second half the other night so I've seen the play from every angle about a dozen times now. And no matter what angle you look at it from the Wisconsin kid smacks Winslow in the face! So I think Wisconsin caught a break in that the call was ball to duke rather than a foul and two free throws to Winslow.

Howard

captmojo
04-10-2015, 09:21 AM
That version of the story is a re-run of an incident two generations earlier. That quote usually goes, "When you throw a strike, Mr. Hornsby will let you know." I think the umpire was the legendary Bill Klem.

Well, it's the way the story was told to me.
I can see that the other one could have happened. I can only accept that both stories might be factual.
I am no longer in touch with the guy that told me the story, that his catcher had verified at the time. It was around 1988 when I heard it.
Yes. I worked at the same place along with both the pitcher and the catcher.
Did it really happen that way or was he sharing a tale with his own persona inserted? I can't say. I only am telling what I heard.
It's still an interesting (I think) situation, from either side.
:cool:

oldnavy
04-10-2015, 09:32 AM
Obviously Winslow used his superior body control to bend his finger tip back in order to avoid touching the ball.... DUH!

Duke95
04-10-2015, 10:07 AM
Obviously Winslow used his superior body control to bend his finger tip back in order to avoid touching the ball.... DUH!

Justise "Neo" Winslow.

devildeac
04-10-2015, 02:15 PM
I re watched the second half the other night so I've seen the play from every angle about a dozen times now. And no matter what angle you look at it from the Wisconsin kid smacks Winslow in the face! So I think Wisconsin caught a break in that the call was ball to duke rather than a foul and two free throws to Winslow.

Howard

And, in addition to the smack in the face mentioned above and by at least a couple other posters, he had hold of one or both of Justise's arms. Plus, Winslow's non-call on the OOB play appeared to be a push that "helped" him fall OOB. Plus, it sure looked like Tyus got fouled with the body at about the 1:03 mark when he had that missed breakaway. I'm still glad we get all the calls;):rolleyes:.

Tripping William
04-10-2015, 02:20 PM
This has been gnawing at me since late Monday night. Do Tony Lang and Justise Winslow happen to have the same manicurist? :p

tux
04-10-2015, 02:57 PM
This has been gnawing at me since late Monday night. Do Tony Lang and Justise Winslow happen to have the same manicurist? :p

HaHa. Obviously different manicurist. Tony needed slightly longer nails, Justise slightly shorter.

gwlaw99
04-10-2015, 03:00 PM
There is no doubt that Koenig fouled Winslow at least twice on the finger tip play. Once by windmilling his left arm into Justice and then slapping him in the forehead with his left hand. Who touched it last should be irrelevant.

Ranidad
04-10-2015, 03:11 PM
I have always admired Coach K's approach of the looking at the entire game instead of singling out a specific call, missed shot, missed assignment, etc.. as the reason that one team or the other won the game.

It drives me crazy when reviews stop the action for several minutes, like on the Winslow fingertip play, because it creates an unnatural break in the game: allowing players to rest, coaches to gather their players together, and interrupting the crowd/momentum atmosphere at that time.

Couldn't this unnatural break in the action have as much or more impact on the outcome of the game as the call that is potentially reversed?

Plus it is absurd to me that reviews often precisely adjust the clock by tenths of a second based on video seemingly without any consideration for the human reaction time involved in every other clock stoppage throughout the game.

I agree that video review is nice to have for egregious errors. However, if it takes 5 minutes, 5 different angles with super slo mo and zoom to get to 90% of people to agree then I think that the positive of review becomes a negative. I would rather say "next play" and let the game play out.

subzero02
04-10-2015, 03:47 PM
Given the force needed for a finger to deflect in the way it did (i.e. hyperextending the finger), I would expect there to be a clear change in the balls path or rotation or probably both. This is as opposed to a finger deflection where the finger is pushed/flexed towards the palm, which would potentially require little force.

In theory, couldn't one use the video and quantify the rotation from the balls seams, and see if there was any change pre/post finger touch? It would be a fun project for anyone with the skill and tools to do it. Which is certainly not me.

For what it's worth, I think that it's unlikely he touched the ball. :)

It's also possible to change the rotation of the ball without actually touching it. If a player with Jahlil's hand size and Randy Johnson's arm speed quickly swept his hand near the ball it's possible the ball's rotation and trajectory could be altered by the violently shifting air molecules and subsequent sonic boom.

Tripping William
04-10-2015, 04:39 PM
HaHa. Obviously different manicurist. Tony needed slightly longer nails, Justise slightly shorter.

Or the same manicurist, but he or she overcompensated on the second go-round . . . . . :o