[Snowball]

i watched it over and over, he didn't get it off.
like said above.. it's the clock, not the light.

[Otters27]

about as close as it can get.

But it looks like it is in at .1 an out at the red light. Clear evidence to me. NCAA should do the right thing and overturn game.

[No coincidences]

i watched it over and over, he didn't get it off.
like said above.. it's the clock, not the light.

I'm watching the gif above and it looks out of his hands both by the clock and the red light.

[wager1]

Know this is a late response but had to chime in. I was convinced when watching it live last night that it had left his hand in time. The weird thing that no one has mentioned is i dont think the refs initially counted it as good. They never signaled anything, they just immediately went to the replay. The score at the time on ESPN was 83-80, but im not sure if ESPN just assumed it was good, or the refs somehow did count it at first. But like the NFL, it has to be conclusive to overturn a call. So if it was ruled a bucket initially, there is NO WAY there was conclusive evidence that it wasn't. When watching, i thought for sure from the side angle that the ball was clearly out, and should have counted. But then the Arizona crowd started cheering like it was obviously no good, bunch of shit. i think the refs were overly influenced by the crowd, which is beyond ridiculous. i had no money on the game, but was disgusted to see colorado get hosed like that, even though Im not a fan of either team, just of ball in general.

[Filmoz]

"Game officials reviewed video replays of the end of regulation in accordance with NCAA playing rules and determined the ball was still on the shooters' fingertips when the official game clock on the floor expired. Per Conference protocol, the officials conducted a thorough review court side and viewed multiple angles of the play before confirming the ruling. I have reviewed the video replays and agree with the ruling."

Despite being a huge Arizona homer, I tried to put aside all bias when I was watching the replay myself, and I did clearly see that the ball was on his fingertips, although it was definitely as close as it could possibly be. But even if the call was questionable, what about the Colorado player losing the ball toward the end in what would have been, at worst, a travel on the Colorado player, which would have turned the ball over to Arizona, and at best, a clean steal and breakaway layup by Arizona (to take the lead I think, I forget), but instead Lyons gets called for a blocking foul? And what about the fact that Colorado put themselves in this position in the first place, after leading by as much as 17 in the first half, and 10 with like 2 minutes to go? The team that deserved to win, won.

[Filmoz]

Know this is a late response but had to chime in. I was convinced when watching it live last night that it had left his hand in time. The weird thing that no one has mentioned is i dont think the refs initially counted it as good. They never signaled anything, they just immediately went to the replay. The score at the time on ESPN was 83-80, but im not sure if ESPN just assumed it was good, or the refs somehow did count it at first. But like the NFL, it has to be conclusive to overturn a call. So if it was ruled a bucket initially, there is NO WAY there was conclusive evidence that it wasn't. When watching, i thought for sure from the side angle that the ball was clearly out, and should have counted. But then the Arizona crowd started cheering like it was obviously no good, bunch of shit. i think the refs were overly influenced by the crowd, which is beyond ridiculous. i had no money on the game, but was disgusted to see colorado get hosed like that, even though Im not a fan of either team, just of ball in general.

I got the impression that the scorekeeper had added the 3 points, but that none of the refs on the court had actually called the basket good. I'm not sure the rule in that situation, but in that scenario it's almost like they are making the call for the first time, rather than needing some standard of indisputable evidence to overturn an already-made call.

[zoo youk]

so wait? the initial call on the floor was that the shot wasn't good and they went to the monitors and said they didn't have enough video evidence to over turn it?

or am I ready this correctly and they NEVER even made a call on the floor and went straight to the monitors? if so, makes it all more fuked up. you always make a call on the floor first no matter what...wow...

[wager1]

so wait? the initial call on the floor was that the shot wasn't good and they went to the monitors and said they didn't have enough video evidence to over turn it?

or am I ready this correctly and they NEVER even made a call on the floor and went straight to the monitors? if so, makes it all more fuked up. you always make a call on the floor first no matter what...wow...

Well as i was watching i noticed the refs really didnt make a call. Atleast i didnt see them make one. I thought for sure it was good, but noticed the refs didnt really make any signal just immediately went to the replay monitors. The commentators even made a remark that they werent sure, but the scoreboard had 83, meaning it counted. So I still am unclear as to what they ruled initiialy. I do know for a fact that they didnt say it was no good, meaning after they watched the replay for them to make the decision to waive off the basket was just beyond absurd!!

[Filmoz]

so wait? the initial call on the floor was that the shot wasn't good and they went to the monitors and said they didn't have enough video evidence to over turn it?

or am I ready this correctly and they NEVER even made a call on the floor and went straight to the monitors? if so, makes it all more fuked up. you always make a call on the floor first no matter what...wow...

Not sure what happened there, and I agree that it would be a breach of protocol to make no call on the floor whatsoever and just go straight to the monitors. But even assuming that the shot was called good on the floor, the officials saw his fingertip touching the ball with time expired, which is clear evidence to overturn, and the head of officiating reviewed the play afterwards and saw the same thing.

[ChalkyDog]

so wait? the initial call on the floor was that the shot wasn't good and they went to the monitors and said they didn't have enough video evidence to over turn it?

or am I ready this correctly and they NEVER even made a call on the floor and went straight to the monitors? if so, makes it all more fuked up. you always make a call on the floor first no matter what...wow...

This was the initial feeling in the arena. They actually announced over the PA, as the refs were making their way to the monitors, that "the officials were exercising their right to review the monitors" (paraphrased of course).

I never saw that they signaled a 3, or anything. Refs all looked at eachother, and then decided to review it. They could have had two contradictory rulings on the floor (which happened often all night), and then instead of huddling up - they went to the monitors.

Realize, they went to the monitors a few times that night for some dumb shit.

However, the feeling in the Arena before they showed the replay on the big screen, was that the refs had no idea - and were looking at the monitors to make sure.

After we saw the replay, the building went nuts.

[wager1]

This was the initial feeling in the arena. They actually announced over the PA, as the refs were making their way to the monitors, that "the officials were exercising their right to review the monitors" (paraphrased of course).

I never saw that they signaled a 3, or anything. Refs all looked at eachother, and then decided to review it. They could have had two contradictory rulings on the floor (which happened often all night), and then instead of huddling up - they went to the monitors.

Realize, they went to the monitors a few times that night for some dumb shit.

However, the feeling in the Arena before they showed the replay on the big screen, was that the refs had no idea - and were looking at the monitors to make sure.

After we saw the replay, the building went nuts.

Obviously you were there. The fact the crowd went crazy after seeing the replay was what was so confusing when watching it on tv, but I think it makes sense now. You guys in the arena saw the replay from behind where its a ridiculously close call either way. But ESPN had an angle from the left, where it is beyond clear that the ball was gone from his hand at .01. Just say'n

[Filmoz]

This was the initial feeling in the arena. They actually announced over the PA, as the refs were making their way to the monitors, that "the officials were exercising their right to review the monitors" (paraphrased of course).

I never saw that they signaled a 3, or anything. Refs all looked at eachother, and then decided to review it. They could have had two contradictory rulings on the floor (which happened often all night), and then instead of huddling up - they went to the monitors.

Realize, they went to the monitors a few times that night for some dumb shit.

However, the feeling in the Arena before they showed the replay on the big screen, was that the refs had no idea - and were looking at the monitors to make sure.

After we saw the replay, the building went nuts.

You goin to the game tomorrow Chalky? I'll be there.

[ChalkyDog]

You goin to the game tomorrow Chalky? I'll be there.

Nah, I wish. Can only make it to a few games.

Only other one I have tickets in hand for is ASU up in Tempe. We'll get homecooking there too.

[ChalkyDog]

Obviously you were there. The fact the crowd went crazy after seeing the replay was what was so confusing when watching it on tv, but I think it makes sense now. You guys in the arena saw the replay from behind where its a ridiculously close call either way. But ESPN had an angle from the left, where it is beyond clear that the ball was gone from his hand at .01. Just say'n

Yeah, it was only shown from behind, and nobody really cared to analyze it closely. If it is close, crowd gets to make noise, and truthfully the crowd had been on the refs for a bit at that point, mainly for calling that terrible foul call on Mark Lyons where the CU player slipped and we had a break away dunk. That kept us from taking the lead ourselves, although that 3 at the end would have allowed them a 1 pt win still.

It was also weird how much Arizona was in their ear while making that choice.

Hell, at one point about half way through the review process, an Arizona player went to the sub table and told the guy who he was coming in for during OT.

[JerseyRobby]

The ref said it was good initially and somehow said their was conclusive evidence to overturn it. Play should have stood.

[ChalkyDog]

The ref said it was good initially and somehow said their was conclusive evidence to overturn it. Play should have stood.

NCAA basketball officials don't need conclusive evidence, there is no standard like there is in football. Like I said, I don't think there was a definitive call on the floor other than to say he shot a 3.

[wager1]

NCAA basketball officials don't need conclusive evidence, there is no standard like there is in football. Like I said, I don't think there was a definitive call on the floor other than to say he shot a 3.

I dont think thats correct. i think it is supposed to work the same way as it does in NFl, NBA, and every other sport that does replay. unless there is Undisputable evidence of a wrong call, the call on floor must stay. But in this situatuion Im still unclear if they ever ruled it good to begin with. I never saw the refs make a signal whether it was good or not. They just looked at each other and then immediately went to the monitors. No clue what actual NCAA rules are, but i would assume thats probably not allowed. You would assume the refs need to make a call one way or the other. at this point its over a day later and I dont really care, but it really cost my buddy a lot of cash, being he had Colorado on the Money as i was watching it with him, and the agony and anger he had when it occured.

[Filmoz]

I dont think thats correct. i think it is supposed to work the same way as it does in NFl, NBA, and every other sport that does replay. unless there is Undisputable evidence of a wrong call, the call on floor must stay. But in this situatuion Im still unclear if they ever ruled it good to begin with. I never saw the refs make a signal whether it was good or not. They just looked at each other and then immediately went to the monitors. No clue what actual NCAA rules are, but i would assume thats probably not allowed. You would assume the refs need to make a call one way or the other. at this point its over a day later and I dont really care, but it really cost my buddy a lot of cash, being he had Colorado on the Money as i was watching it with him, and the agony and anger he had when it occured.

That sucks for your buddy, I know how bad beats feel, I had a very large bet on the Packers against the Seahawks earlier this year, and we all know how that turned out. But your buddy oughta be more pissed at Colorado for blowing what was basically a locked-in win. KenPom rated this as the unlikeliest comeback of the year, at like 1.7% or something, and that is irrespective of the call at the end. How often do teams come back from being down double digits with 2 minutes to go? Colorado couldn't inbound, couldn't make free throws when it counted. Also, turning now to the call, there seems to be some overwhelming consensus on here that it was the wrong call, but I disagree. At least on my tv, as they were playing the replays over and over, I clearly saw shots of him having the ball on his fingertips with time expired. Again, I am an Arizona homer, but if the shot was good I would have readily conceded it (as an Arizona fan, I am well-seasoned to deal with heartbreaking losses). Not only that, but its not as if the refs were trying to sweep it under the rug as if they knew they made a corrupt call. They clearly conveyed that they saw clear footage of the ball still touching his fingertips when the clock was at 0.0, then the head of officiating reviewed it later and agreed. Finally, the game was still tied as a result of the call, giving Colorado a full five minutes of overtime to prove they were the better team, and they managed to score only 3 points in that five minutes.

[Louisvillekid1]

+650 ML

Imo it wasn't even close, he clearly got it off