Scholarship table
He didn't get it off. Caught a break. You can zoom in. Looks pretty definitive to me.Oh well lolhttps://twitter.com/__sindelar/status/1083219880105725952?s=19
Speaking of no good, how about the Blue Jay cheerleaders?
Fair enough, but I would also disagree on the suggestion that no human being can do this. We know what is possible with all the billions of people on this planet? Maybe 99.9% of humans can't, but by all means someone can do what you just described. Can they in .3...no. .5...maybe. .8, sure. Read old articles of SCIENTISTS (we must believe science) that said a sub 4 minute mile by a human being was impossible. Not only impossible, but would be dangerous. Until it happened. That running under 10 seconds in the 100 meters...impossible for a human being. Until it happened. https://impossiblehq.com/impossible-case-study-sir-roger-bannister/
Let's put it this way:That was one of the worst refereeing jobs at the college level I have ever witnessed.If people are going to blame Creighton's loss on the refs screwing up that call, then they need to go back and look at all of the times the refs screwed up. There were a ton of fouls on Markus and company that were never called. If they had been, and we had the additional free throw attempts, we would have won anyway.I am not saying it's a legitimate argument, but you can't fairly use one without the other.
I agree that the photo shows that the ball may have been on Sam's fingertip for a nanosecond. But the reality is that's not relevant at all. The officials didn't have anything other than the video replay which was entirely inconclusive. Given that, they had no alternative but to uphold the call as it had been called on the court. No reversal was possible. Had they called it 'no shot', that too would have stood.
I don't think it is possible. Whatever fraction of a second it took the clock operator to start it up (maybe 0.2 seconds?) makes all the difference.
Agree chick and its kind of worrisome that maybe two of the worst calls i have ever seen occurred in the last week in the Big East. Markus oob n SH v SJU
Clock operator (ref) not allowed to anticipate that. He has to make sure the ball is touched. What his eyes see, tell his brain to then tell his finger to press a button, then that signal from belt sent to the clock to start. As you mentioned, that's "basketball time"...it's also the reality of physics.I don't see anything that screams the clock started late, it was entirely reasonable.
It's also a reality of physics that it was more than 0.8 seconds from the time Sam first touched the ball until he was no longer in contact with the ball. That is what I mean by real time. Basketball time includes officials reaction to push the button to start the clock, which I believe increased the time Sam did what he did to much closer to a second than to 8/10s of a second. That's what I mean by basketball time. No big deal, not an error, that's what happens on all basketball plays to get the clock started.
That is certainly not conclusive and it's impossible to tell if his fingers are still touching the ball from behind his hand. The only angle that would tell you that is from directly to the side of Sam looking across the court. You can't see the front of Sam's fingers, so there's really no way to tell if they're still touching the ball or if the ball is a millimeter out of his hand.
This was my point. It's why, for example only a tip is allowed if there is .3 or less left. It's possible to get a shot off in .8 if the player catches and shoots in one motion. To jump to catch it, come down, go back up and release the ball in .8? Even given Sam's limited vertical, not physically possible. Whether he got the shot off in less than .8 from the time the clock was started is open to debate. Whether he got it off in .8 from when he first touched it isn't.
Roger Bannister laughing at the moment somewhere in the ether....lots of things not possible ended up being possible.
Not even remotely the same thing. Those scientists were not discussing physics. They were basing it on human stamina, etc. For every sporting task there is some limit to how fast it can be done. Thus, some things are impossible. I am going to say it is impossible for a person to run a mile in less than a second and always will be. To be in the air, land, jump again and release a shot in 0.8 seconds is impossible for Sam Hauser.
I mean ... who the f--- cares (except maybe salty Creighton fans)? The clock operator starts and restarts the clock literally dozens of times every game. And on each and every one of those dozens of occasions, he/she is going to be 1-2/10ths of a second behind the moment the ball touched a player. So what? the solution? What should be done ... add those tenths of a second before the end of the game and deduct that time off the clock?Even by Scoop standards, this debate is dumb.
If nobody cares, why are there rules about what can be done given how much time is left? If a guy dribbles a couple of times and shoots before the backboard goes red when the clock said .2 let it count. Just another timekeeper screw up, right?
I'm overjoyed we won last night, [/wuote]Yes, so overjoyed that we won you're trying your darndest to prove that we shouldn't have won.What happened on last night's buzzer beater is what happens on every buzzer beater in basketball. You want to talk about impossibilities ... how about it being impossible for a human to start a clock at the precise millisecond that the player touches a ball. How it went down last night is how it always goes down.
If nobody cares, why are there rules about what can be done given how much time is left? If a guy dribbles a couple of times and shoots before the backboard goes red when the clock said .2 let it count. Just another timekeeper screw up, right?I'm overjoyed we won last night, but I guarantee you that if we lost a game like that this place would be up in arms. As for the "debate" being dumb, the only thing dumb about it would be someone claiming that a player can catch a ball at the top of a jump, come down to the ground, jump back up and release a ball in .8 seconds. Can't be done, even by Roger Bannister (WTF was that???).
You're raving about how .8 is an impossibility. Why?
Raving? LOL. One of your favorite tactics.CT and I aren't raving, merely stating what we believe to be a physical impossibility. Do you believe it's possible to jump to catch a ball, land. jump again and release a shot in .8?
Raving? LOL. One of your favorite tactics.
CT and I aren't raving, merely stating what we believe to be a physical impossibility. Do you believe it's possible to jump to catch a ball, land. jump again and release a shot in .8?