Buzzer beaters and last-second rule changes needed

[Fungo Squiggly]

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

Except that they are already reviewing the call on whether the shot counted. They might as well review it in a manner where they can get the correct answer.

 

[Zurp]

Most fans want the right calls made.

I can't speak for most fans, but I definitely want the right call made. Sure, it would suck to see an Ohio State win become a loss because of a reversal after a replay review. But if the right call is made, there's not much I can complain about. I would much rather see the right call made, Buckeye win or loss, than see the wrong team get to celebrate after the wrong call was made.

 

[Jake]

The clock stoppage after the game winner by Ross was asinine. There was nothing to review. They put .1 second back on the clock to justify it because the replay showed the clock was exactly right, and there was no question it was a three.

Arizona had no time outs left, and this ridiculous stoppage gave them one. If they scored on that last play I would still be going ape shit over it.

 

[jlb1705]

The clock stoppage after the game winner by Ross was asinine. There was nothing to review. They put .1 second back on the clock to justify it because the replay showed the clock was exactly right, and there was no question it was a three.

Arizona had no time outs left, and this ridiculous stoppage gave them one. If they scored on that last play I would still be going ape shit over it.

Agreed.

Get rid of all these stoppages and replays. Quit treating lost/added fractions of seconds in the final minute differently than the ones from the first 39.

Extra stoppages for this kind of stuff means more set plays being called from the sidelines. I'd rather let the game flow and see the players make decisions on the fly. For better or worse, that's what makes the close games at the college level so damn entertaining. I'll tolerate the margin of error by the clock operator to watch better basketball.

 

[BB73]

The clock stoppage after the game winner by Ross was asinine. There was nothing to review. They put .1 second back on the clock to justify it because the replay showed the clock was exactly right, and there was no question it was a three.

Arizona had no time outs left, and this ridiculous stoppage gave them one. If they scored on that last play I would still be going ape shit over it.

Litlbuck and others (perhaps you included) have been pointing that out all year. At least the guys on TBS talked about it for a while after the game. Hopefully they'll change the way those are handled next season.

 

[jwinslow]

The clock stoppage after the game winner by Ross was asinine. There was nothing to review. They put .1 second back on the clock to justify it because the replay showed the clock was exactly right, and there was no question it was a three.

Arizona had no time outs left, and this ridiculous stoppage gave them one. If they scored on that last play I would still be going ape shit over it.

But it was more accurate

If you must review things, have a dedicated guy to do that. Then game play can continue while you review elbows or threes not at the end of a half.

Also add some sort of provision that time isn't adjusted unless it is off by some chunk of time. One replay showed that the clock stoppage was fair and within a reasonable range of the made basket.

 

[buckiprof]

(The following is meant for entertainment purposes only in trying to point out there there may be a point at which trying to remove human "error" becomes ridiculous.)

If the proposal of counting frames comes to fruition, then there has to be a next step in this "time" controversy. Humans controlling when to stop and start a clock are always, be definition, wrong on exactly when it should stop and start. When the human sees when the clock should stop (or start), time has passed by the seeing and then reacting to push the button to stop (or start) the clock. Time passes as the signal travels along the human nervous system to move the finger to stop (or start) the clock.

This is an obvious human "error" that is fixed by the speed at which light travels and the speed at which signals travel along the nervous system. So when a team does win (or lose) a game and someone does the whole frame counting argument to show that one team got screwed, I guess the next step is to look at all of the clock stoppages (and starts) during the half and figure in the cumulative human "error" in the inadequate processing speed of light, eyes, and nerve signal speed to see what the "real" outcome would be.

 

[Bucknut24]

this is the most times i've seen them go to the monitor than any other year

 

[CentralMOBuck]

I think a 4th official is needed. Not one that is on court, but one that is in charge of these type of replays. He's got a nice big tv and has instant access to all the replays and can make instant decisions. Basically how college football does things. If a play like last nights needs further review. He buzzes the scorer's table or the other refs for a stoppage of play.

 

[MaxBuck]

(The following is meant for entertainment purposes only in trying to point out there there may be a point at which trying to remove human "error" becomes ridiculous.)

If the proposal of counting frames comes to fruition, then there has to be a next step in this "time" controversy. Humans controlling when to stop and start a clock are always, be definition, wrong on exactly when it should stop and start. When the human sees when the clock should stop (or start), time has passed by the seeing and then reacting to push the button to stop (or start) the clock. Time passes as the signal travels along the human nervous system to move the finger to stop (or start) the clock.

This is an obvious human "error" that is fixed by the speed at which light travels and the speed at which signals travel along the nervous system. So when a team does win (or lose) a game and someone does the whole frame counting argument to show that one team got screwed, I guess the next step is to look at all of the clock stoppages (and starts) during the half and figure in the cumulative human "error" in the inadequate processing speed of light, eyes, and nerve signal speed to see what the "real" outcome would be.

I think there are some experiments needed on the Large Hadron Collider. Perhaps we need a quark monitor to establish how many femtoseconds are needed to get a legitimate shot off before the final buzzer.

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

I think there are some experiments needed on the Large Hadron Collider. Perhaps we need a quark monitor to establish how many femtoseconds are needed to get a legitimate shot off before the final buzzer.

Agreed. And (obviously) compensating for time distortion near Andre Almeida in Nebraska games.