Buzzer beaters and last-second rule changes needed

[BB73]

The NCAA needs to make some changes in order to prevent the counting of a last-second 'game-winning' shot that should have been disallowed.

Let's re-visit Sunday's game against Iowa State. Pretend that Craft's shot put the Buckeyes up by either 1 or 2 points, and that the final 75-footer wasn't blocked by Craft, but actually went through the net at the other end. With .5 seconds to go before he caught the ball, that shot should not have counted, but sometimes the shooter is given more time than he rightfully deserves (I think they would have disallowed that shot, but what if they hadn't?).

There are two primary reasons for this. First, when the shot by Craft went through, they reviewed the play and reset the time from .2 to .5 seconds because they saw .5 on the clock when the ball was through the nets. That actually means that there is something between .50 and .41 on the clock, but they always reset it to the full tenths of a second, which could be giving the offensive team an extra .09 seconds (or .099, but I don't think we'll need to deal with thousands of a second, just hundredths).

The second reason is that when the shooter catches the ball, the clock starts when the timekeeper at half-court clicks a button/switch when he sees a player on the court first touch the ball. Some of them anticipate the contact, and start the clock at the right time. Some might actually start it too soon in order to not be late and allow too much time. But normally there is a slight delay in the starting of the clock, giving the shooter more time than he deserves.

There was an NCAA tournament game this year (can't remember the game) where a team had .4 seconds on the clock, and did a catch-and-shoot. The guy missed the shot, but it would have been counted, and I'm not sure if it should have or not. If he'd made that shot, a lot more people would be addressing this topic.

I propose two rule changes for next season in an attempt to only count buzzer-beaters which were actually released in time. First, if they're going to put time back on the clock in these situations (and delay the game giving teams free timeouts, but that's another topic), they should change to hundredths of a second in NCAA tournament games. After doing this, individual conferences can decide if they want to mandate the same change.

Second, and more importantly, when reviewing last second shots that come when there is less than 1 second (or 5 seconds involving passing/dribbling, if they choose) remaining on the in-bounds play, they should use the number of frames of the TV picture in which the ball was 'in play' (the time between the catch and the release of the shot) in order to determine how much time was taken. On last second shots, they could have a chart that indicates how much time is needed on the clock for a shooter who had the ball for each number of frames between .3 and a full second. Below .3, nobody can catch and shoot the ball, they can only tip it, according to studies the NBA did years ago (although using this video method should prove that every time).

Let's say the broadcast is capturing 60 frames per second. If the shooter has .49 on the clock, and he has the ball for 31 frames in the video, the shot would not count, no matter when the timekeeper started the clock. It takes 31 to elapse a half-second, since the difference of 30 frames from the first to the last is equal to .50 seconds. The referees looking at the monitor would need to identify the first and last frames involved, and then have somebody tell them how much time was involved (or perhaps they could have timestamps added to each frame on an official video feed).

One more thing - the NCAA should stop the clock after made baskets in the last minute of the first half, just like they do at the end of the game. Why they've never figured that one out is mind-boggling. Any time-keeping and video review changes which are implemented for game-ending situations should also be applied to the end of the first half.

If they utilize these changes, and tOSU wins a game because the opponent's buzzer-beater is appropriately not counted, you can thank me. Of course, if tOSU has a game-winner wiped out due to these rule changes, I'll be getting a different reaction!

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

The NCAA needs to make some changes in order to prevent the counting of a last-second 'game-winning' shot that should have been disallowed.

Let's re-visit Sunday's game against Iowa State. Pretend that Craft's shot put the Buckeyes up by either 1 or 2 points, and that the final 75-footer wasn't blocked by Craft, but actually went through the net at the other end. With .5 seconds to go before he caught the ball, that shot should not have counted, but sometimes the shooter is given more time than he rightfully deserves (I think they would have disallowed that shot, but what if they hadn't?).

There are two primary reasons for this. First, when the shot by Craft went through, they reviewed the play and reset the time from .2 to .5 seconds because they saw .5 on the clock when the ball was through the nets. That actually means that there is something between .50 and .41 on the clock, but they always reset it to the full tenths of a second, which could be giving the offensive team an extra .09 seconds (or .099, but I don't think we'll need to deal with thousands of a second, just hundredths).

The second reason is that when the shooter catches the ball, the clock starts when the timekeeper at half-court clicks a button/switch when he sees a player on the court first touch the ball. Some of them anticipate the contact, and start the clock at the right time. Some might actually start it too soon in order to not be late and allow too much time. But normally there is a slight delay in the starting of the clock, giving the shooter more time than he deserves.

There was an NCAA tournament game this year (can't remember the game) where a team had .4 seconds on the clock, and did a catch-and-shoot. The guy missed the shot, but it would have been counted, and I'm not sure if it should have or not. If he'd made that shot, a lot more people would be addressing this topic.

I propose two rule changes for next season in an attempt to only count buzzer-beaters which were actually released in time. First, if they're going to put time back on the clock in these situations (and delay the game giving teams free timeouts, but that's another topic), they should change to hundredths of a second in NCAA tournament games. After doing this, individual conferences can decide if they want to mandate the same change.

Second, and more importantly, when reviewing last second shots that come when there is less than 1 second (or 5 seconds involving passing/dribbling, if they choose) remaining on the in-bounds play, they should use the number of frames of the TV picture in which the ball was 'in play' (the time between the catch and the release of the shot) in order to determine how much time was taken. On last second shots, they could have a chart that indicates how much time is needed on the clock for a shooter who had the ball for each number of frames between .3 and a full second. Below .3, nobody can catch and shoot the ball, they can only tip it, according to studies the NBA did years ago (although using this video method should prove that every time).

Let's say the broadcast is capturing 60 frames per second. If the shooter has .49 on the clock, and he has the ball for 31 frames in the video, the shot would not count, no matter when the timekeeper started the clock. It takes 31 to elapse a half-second, since the difference of 30 frames from the first to the last is equal to .50 seconds. The referees looking at the monitor would need to identify the first and last frames involved, and then have somebody tell them how much time was involved (or perhaps they could have timestamps added to each frame on an official video feed).

One more thing - the NCAA should stop the clock after made baskets in the last minute of the first half, just like they do at the end of the game. Why they've never figured that one out is mind-boggling. Any time-keeping and video review changes which are implemented for game-ending situations should also be applied to the end of the first half.

If they utilize these changes, and tOSU wins a game because the opponent's buzzer-beater is appropriately not counted, you can thank me. Of course, if tOSU has a game-winner wiped out due to these rule changes, I'll be getting a different reaction!

Absolutely agreed. My first reaction after the shot on Saturday was something along the lines of:
"The ref raised his arm to indicate a three point attempt? There is no way less than .5 seconds ran off the clock between the time when he caught the ball, turned his body and took a half step, and then shot the ball!"

I wasn't particularly angry about it, but definitely bordering on incredulous. If the shot had gone in, I might have felt more strongly.

 

[colobuck79]

In the CSU/Louisville game this very thing happened at the end of the first half. Louisvill had the ball out at the baseline in their own end of the court with 0.5 seconds showing. The ball was passed to the corner behind the three point line. The guy jumps up and catches the ball, comes down, and takes the shot. It goes in. No way he got that shot off in 0.5 seconds. Obviously the timekeeper was late on the button, which is shocking seeing as how the game was being played in Kentucky. Of course not a peep from the TV announcers. The refs went to the screen to see if the ball left his hand before the clock went to 00. Unbelievably I think there was still 0.2 showing when the ball left his hand, so we are to believe that he did all that in 0.3 seconds? This is a long winded way of saying that I agree with your proposed rule changes. Make it so.

 

[dragurd]

Not only that but is the rule to stop the clock when it goes through the net or when it hits the floor/player standing under the basket. It seemed obvious to me it should be the later but on the OSU game they definately called the former.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Just sayin': In the NBA there is a world of difference between .2 seconds and .5 seconds (aka The Trent Tucker Rule):

The Official Rules of the National Basketball Association state
NO LESS THAN :00.3 must expire on the game clock and shot clock when a ball is thrown inbounds and then hit instantly out-of-bounds. If less than :00.3 expires in such a situation, the timer will be instructed to deduct AT LEAST :00.3 from the game clock and shot clock. If, in the judgment of the official, the play took longer than :00.3, he will instruct the timer to deduct more time. If :00.3 or less remain on the game clock when this situation occurs, the period is over. If :00.3 or less remain on the shot clock when this situation occurs, a shot clock violation is called.
The game clock and shot clock must show :00.3 or more in order for a player to secure possession of the ball on a rebound or throw-in to attempt a field goal. Instant replay shall be utilized if the basket is successful on this type of play and the game clock runs to 0:00 or the shot clock expires on a made basket and the officials are not reasonably certain that the ball was released prior to the expiration of the shot clock. The only type of field goal which may be scored if the game clock and shot clock are at :00.2 or :00.1 is a ?tip-in? or ?high lob.?

The Article 16.2.5 of the 2010 FIBA Official Rules state: "The game clock must indicate 0:00.3 (three tenths of a second) or more for a player to gain control of the ball on a throw-in or on a rebound after the last or only free throw in order to attempt a shot for a field goal. If the game clock indicates 0:00.2 or 0:00.1 the only type of a valid field goal made is by tapping or directly dunking the ball."

 

[BB73]

Not only that but is the rule to stop the clock when it goes through the net or when it hits the floor/player standing under the basket. It seemed obvious to me it should be the later but on the OSU game they definately called the former.

They stop the clock when the ball is completely clear of the net, which I believe is fair. If they based it on the ball hitting a player or the floor, there would be a variance in the elapsed time which could be manipulated by players under the basket.

 

[BB73]

Just sayin': In the NBA there is a world of difference between .2 seconds and .5 seconds (aka The Trent Tucker Rule):

I mentioned that in my wall of text. :tongue2:

Below .3, nobody can catch and shoot the ball, they can only tip it, according to studies the NBA did years ago (although using this video method should prove that every time).

 

[UpNorth_Buckeye]

I mentioned that in my wall of text. :tongue2:

but what you didn't account for:

 

[Muck]

A proposal that games be decided by a referee counting the number of TV frames that have elapsed in order to determine whether or not a shot counts should probably be reconsidered.

Maybe go with something involving trigonometry.

 

[BB73]

A proposal that games be decided by a referee counting the number of TV frames that have elapsed in order to determine whether or not a shot counts should probably be reconsidered.

As soon as they get one wrong and it costs a team a game, that's what TV networks and fan sites will use to show that the call was wrong. So why not use that technique to get it right?

 

[LitlBuck]

I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about regarding last-second rule changes but I would like to see a rule change that when a team has no timeouts left and there is less than, I don't know say 10 seconds left on the game clock, that teams should not be allowed to gather around their coaches for their coach to draw up a play or a defense just because the worthless officials have to check the game clock. I think there is too much clock checking these days anyhow. This season seemed especially bad.

There are other rules that need to be looked at also like calling timeouts when a guy is rolling around on the court with the ball.

 

[Muck]

As soon as they get one wrong and it costs a team a game, that's what TV networks and fan sites will use to show that the call was wrong. So why not use that technique to get it right?

Because it's unlikely to do a better job of getting it 'right'.

You want outrage? Just wait until a team has a win taken away 15 minutes after the fact because the number of frames being counted was too high. Look at football, instant replay hasn't reduced controversy; if anything it's increased it.

Go to a hundredth of a second clock. Make sure there is better standardization on when to start & stop the clock. Those are good suggestions. But anything that increases the odds of being forced to sit around and wait while a ref watching a video screen decides who won is a bad idea.

 

[BB73]

Because it's unlikely to do a better job of getting it 'right'.

You want outrage? Just wait until a team has a win taken away 15 minutes after the fact because the number of frames being counted was too high. Look at football, instant replay hasn't reduced controversy; if anything it's increased it.

Go to a hundredth of a second clock. Make sure there is better standardization on when to start & stop the clock. Those are good suggestions. But anything that increases the odds of being forced to sit around and wait while a ref watching a video screen decides who won is a bad idea.

The refs are already going to go to the replay in the situations I'm describing. A timestamp on the frames would be a better way of calculating the elapsed time than having somebody count the number of frames; but if the refs are going to review the video, why not use technology to help them make the correct decision?

I'd rather have the right team win, than have a team cut down the nets and then have it proved that their game-winning shot should not have counted, or that the losing team's game-winning shot should have counted.

 

[jwinslow]

The humanity of sports is part of what makes it so great, and that includes controversial calls.

A more perfect game would review plays where they stepped out of bounds, or whether the ball was touched while it was in the cylinder...

All the while slowing down the game even more.

Had he made the shot from half court, most of America would find that to be a major plus even if the time remaining was controversial.

Most Fans don't want precision and perfection. They want excitement.

They need to stop the overuse of replay with forearms. They stop play seventy times a game for timeouts, do the reviews during those moments unless it is really blatant contact.

I am just glad that someone finally started purchasing monitors that are bigger than an ipad screen. Those microscopic monitors they used to use were laughably small

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Most Fans don't want precision and perfection. They want excitement.

Most fans want the right calls made.

Very few calls even fall under the realm of being reviewable in the sense of the play being so close it could/should be reviewed. When a play can determine which team does or does not proceed to the Sweet 16, they should take their sweet-assed time about it, and make sure they get the call correct.