MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: muwarrior69 on January 09, 2019, 09:58:44 PM
-
I watched that play over and over and it looked like Sam did not get the shot off in time from that camera angle. Glad the refs called it a basket, but I could understand how the Jays could feel they got robbed however it was a close call either way.
-
Im thankful the camera quality / angle was fairly poor and inconclusive. My guess is he was still touching with the middle finger but not enough to turn over the floor call
-
I watched that play over and over and it looked like Sam did not get the shot off in time from that camera angle. Glad the refs called it a basket, but I could understand how the Jays could feel they got robbed however it was a close call either way.
There was one camera frame that shows it just out of his hand before the board lit up.
-
Closest buzzer call I’ve ever seen. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to say for sure either way, glad they called it good originally cause that call wasn’t gonna get reversed either way.
-
I gotta say I agree. I was extremely pleasantly surprised we got that bucket. If it had been the other way -- our opponent had gotten credit for a made basket -- I think most of us would be pretty mad.
But I'm moving on, and have these 2 thoughts:
1. I hope Sam's game-tying 3 has the same effect on this season as Junior's tying 3 vs. UConn did back in 2013. We won that in OT and it gave us the momentum we would use to win the BEast title.
2. We absolutely stole a game we had no business winning. In that respect, reminds me of the NCAA tourney win vs. Davidson.
-
Im thankful the camera quality / angle was fairly poor and inconclusive. My guess is he was still touching with the middle finger but not enough to turn over the floor call
Are you really thankful though??
-
Are you really thankful though??
so are you doctor 5, doctor of the 5, the 5th cranial nerve doctor or a doc of lady parts...in any event, hard to lose anything here
-
There is absolutely no way someone can catch a ball at the top of their jump, come down from that jump to the ground, jump again and release a shot in .8 seconds. It's impossible. Timekeeper had to be a second slow. My head thinks Creighton was jobbed and feels a little sorry for them. My heart, however, is filled with joy. I've watched well over 1000 MU games and this game (down 3, .8 seconds left, the opponent with possession - are you kidding me?) was easily the most improbable win I've ever witnessed. Awesome!!!
-
There is absolutely no way someone can catch a ball at the top of their jump, come down from that jump to the ground, jump again and release a shot in .8 seconds. It's impossible. Timekeeper had to be a second slow. My head thinks Creighton was jobbed and feels a little sorry for them. My heart, however, is filled with joy. I've watched well over 1000 MU games and this game (down 3, .8 seconds left, the opponent with possession - are you kidding me?) was easily the most improbable win I've ever witnessed. Awesome!!!
Yep, and I think Wojo is 10-0 in OT games.
-
There is absolutely no way someone can catch a ball at the top of their jump, come down from that jump to the ground, jump again and release a shot in .8 seconds. It's impossible. Timekeeper had to be a second slow. My head thinks Creighton was jobbed and feels a little sorry for them. My heart, however, is filled with joy. I've watched well over 1000 MU games and this game (down 3, .8 seconds left, the opponent with possession - are you kidding me?) was easily the most improbable win I've ever witnessed. Awesome!!!
Hard to disagree i watched the first replay and thought the same thing. And also thought it may have been late. I paced tge floor for the next 5 minutes listening to the announcers say they didnt think it was good and refusing to watch the replays cuz i was afraid of what i thought i saw. Ultimately i think it was soo close tgey couldnt take it away and maybe even subconsciencely the refs have to tip their cap on a play that close and give it to the kid.
Falls into the special bowl of plays like those made by Lucas, whitehead, Doc, hutch, wardle, Novak, Cadougan, and now Sam. Im prolly forgetting a few but those were some of the biggest.
-
He didn't get it off. Caught a break. You can zoom in. Looks pretty definitive to me.
Oh well lol
https://twitter.com/__sindelar/status/1083219880105725952?s=19
-
I was shocked we had Markus inbounding the ball on that play? Wonder what the thought was there?
-
Yep, and I think Wojo is 10-0 in OT games.
Lost to Georgetown and Butler in OT Wojo's first year. Since then you are correct, 10-0!
-
There is absolutely no way someone can catch a ball at the top of their jump, come down from that jump to the ground, jump again and release a shot in .8 seconds. It's impossible. Timekeeper had to be a second slow. My head thinks Creighton was jobbed and feels a little sorry for them. My heart, however, is filled with joy. I've watched well over 1000 MU games and this game (down 3, .8 seconds left, the opponent with possession - are you kidding me?) was easily the most improbable win I've ever witnessed. Awesome!!!
Agree with this. There will probably be some new NCAA rule on this for next season.
-
Lost to Georgetown and Butler in OT Wojo's first year. Since then you are correct, 10-0!
Thanks, so 10-2 would be correct. Thanks again.
-
He didn't get it off. Caught a break. You can zoom in. Looks pretty definitive to me.
Oh well lol
https://twitter.com/__sindelar/status/1083219880105725952?s=19
As i said in my orevious post i saw the first replay and my stomach fell
I stopped watching and paced while officials reviewed n couldnt watch. Now an hour later i have watched the replays and do not think he got it off. I think it was on his fingertips, blurry replay had to help. Crazy!! 1 for the good guys!!
-
Sam's shot should not have been called good (attached). I thought it was still on his finger tips - and it was. This makes up for some of the other bad calls against us in the game. Awesome game!
-
Yep
-
This is one of the problems with the replay system. In some instances the replay is clearer than others, and I think our guys benefited from this one being a little fuzzy.
I somehow think the fact that all 3 refs definitively called it a good shot played into the ultimate decision.
Also curious to know why the one ref kept putting on the headphones. Was he talking to somebody in a central location?
I agree with Lenny that it's pretty close to impossible to do all that in .8 of a second. But I'll take it, baby! I was gonna say "It's better to be lucky than good," but it's best to be lucky AND good!
-
Sam's shot should not have been called good (attached). I thought it was still on his finger tips - and it was. This makes up for some of the other bad calls against us in the game. Awesome game!
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.
-
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.
Yep. OTOH, I'm quite sure if they had called the shot no good on the court, the replay wouldn't have overturned it to give Sam the hoop. It was huge that all 3 of them called it good in live action.
-
I was shocked we had Markus inbounding the ball on that play? Wonder what the thought was there?
Was just going to post the same thing. It all happened so fast and worked out but truly mind boggling to me why he would be inbounding. Had Sam missed the shot this would have been a major question to be asked.
-
I think the ball is definitely on his fingertips. He hasn't fully flicked the wrist to release the ball.
-
Was just going to post the same thing. It all happened so fast and worked out but truly mind boggling to me why he would be inbounding. Had Sam missed the shot this would have been a major question to be asked.
I was a little surprised Markus was inbounding, but I wasn't at all surprised the pass went to Sam, nor would I have been surprised it went to Joey. You needed to throw it out there to a tall guy who could also hit a 3. MU only has 2 of those. Would have been much more difficult getting Markus open. But even then, maybe have JCS throw the inbound pass with Markus as a decoy.
But hey, it worked out, and it's a results business. Nice win for Wojo and our heroes.
-
I think the ball is definitely on his fingertips. He hasn't fully flicked the wrist to release the ball.
If it's before he ever completes the motion of the shot then there would've been conclusive video evidence of it. If the ball is still touching his hand (certainly possible), it's at the very, very last moment of his shot.
-
Glad you agree with me.
-
Glad you agree with me.
Yeah I don't. There is nothing conclusive one way or another in that picture.
-
I was a little surprised Marcus was inbounding, but I wasn't at all surprised the pass went to Sam, nor would I have been surprised it went to Joey. You needed to throw it out there to a tall guy who could also hit a 3. MU only has 2 of those. Would have been much more difficult getting Markus open. But even then, maybe have JCS throw the inbound pass with Markus as a decoy.
But hey, it worked out, and it's a results business. Nice win for Wojo and our heroes.
I may be wrong, but Wojo may have called that in his little sugar huddle as the boys were going past the bench to inbound. For a second when the ref slammed the ball on the ground I thought he was going to start counting.
-
I may be wrong, but Wojo may have called that in his little sugar huddle as the boys were going past the bench to inbound. For a second when the ref slammed the ball on the ground I thought he was going to start counting.
I noticed that too. That was...weird lol
-
Rule is simple. If the replay is not definitive the call on the floor stands. The call on the floor was the shot counted.
-
Rule is simple. If the replay is not definitive the call on the floor stands. The call on the floor was the shot counted.
+1
Going frame by frame as they did on the broadcast, the ball was on his fingertips at 0:00.01 and off at 0:00.00. There was no 0:00.005 frame to differentiate, so you have to go with the call on the floor. Lucky? Probably, but I'll take it.
-
There is absolutely no way someone can catch a ball at the top of their jump, come down from that jump to the ground, jump again and release a shot in .8 seconds. It's impossible. Timekeeper had to be a second slow. My head thinks Creighton was jobbed and feels a little sorry for them. My heart, however, is filled with joy. I've watched well over 1000 MU games and this game (down 3, .8 seconds left, the opponent with possession - are you kidding me?) was easily the most improbable win I've ever witnessed. Awesome!!!
Not impossible. In fact one camera angle seems to show that's exactly what happened. Another camera angle suggests it would take .81 seconds. It's been done before.
-
Also curious to know why the one ref kept putting on the headphones.
I think he was listening for the buzzer.
-
Not impossible. In fact one camera angle seems to show that's exactly what happened. Another camera angle suggests it would take .81 seconds. It's been done before.
Well, what we don't know is if the clock operator hit the go button at the exact right moment.
Catching the ball in the air, coming down to the floor, jumping up again and releasing the shot ... all in .8 of a second? Wow!
Methinks we got home cookin' from a road clock operator. Love it!
-
I just watched the replay 10 times, and it sure seemed the clock didn't start ticking until well after Sam caught the ball and was on his way down from his leap. He then went up and shot.
Clock operators are human, too! Great win!!!
-
i kept watching the creighton kid with the blue sweater on, facing the refs at the replay monitor. his facial expressions never changed. i've got to think if the refs were truly leaning toward "no good" the kid would have had a more positive look, (unless he was an undercover nebraska fan) even as the refs backed away the 1st time, his expression was like oh fu#k, they are going to call it good. the black ref looked back at his buddies and said(read his lips) do you have enough to over turn it? if anyone has that footage(i don't) i recall it seeming to take 1/2 an hour
-
Lenny
I agree with your post. I will take this improbable victory all day long. While I think they stole one, actually know they stole one, this is win to enjoy. Hope it is building block to bigger things ahead. This is the kind of win that can change the trajectory of the whole season.
-
#1 Play of the day on sports center
-
I may be wrong, but Wojo may have called that in his little sugar huddle as the boys were going past the bench to inbound. For a second when the ref slammed the ball on the ground I thought he was going to start counting.
So, great move by Wojo then?
-
Beyond just the huge road win what I dig about that 3-pointer with 0.8 left on clock; in all my years of watching college Hoops, the rule-of-thumb I've heard is that it takes a minimum of 0.8 seconds to get a shot off. So we now have at least one sample of that happening to include a successful shot. For our team. On the road. It sorta proves the rule.
And, I've seen it mentioned the powers-that-be might create a rule change perhaps formalizing that rule-of-thumb (although I doubt it will happen). Were it to happen, it would be yet another instance of a rule shaped by Marquette to include rules like the no-bumble-bee-uniforms rule (sometime in the early 70s, right?), the cannot-swap-free-throw-shooter rule (Marquette vs Missouri in NCAA tourney), and others, I'm sure, but for which I'm currently unaware.
So, just more of Marquette University being that much more a main thread which, throughout decades, shapes the sport of college Hoops. Pretty cool, huh?
goinUptown (aka/AlsDisciple)
-
Not impossible. In fact one camera angle seems to show that's exactly what happened. Another camera angle suggests it would take .81 seconds. It's been done before.
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.
-
I believe the officials control the start of the clock using the timing belt packs that they wear.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/sports/ncaabasketball/shrill-to-ncaa-tournament-referees-its-symphonic.html
-
So, great move by Wojo then?
Hellz yeah!
Take advantage of having the visitor bench on the offensive end in the 2H. Regardless of whether he told Markus to inbound, it got the guys on the same page.
-
I just watched the replay 10 times, and it sure seemed the clock didn't start ticking until well after Sam caught the ball and was on his way down from his leap. He then went up and shot.
Clock operators are human, too! Great win!!!
Exactly, Mike.
-
I believe the officials control the start of the clock using the timing belt packs that they wear.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/sports/ncaabasketball/shrill-to-ncaa-tournament-referees-its-symphonic.html
Super-interesting article, and I learned something today. I like that.
This is what we reporters used to refer to as the "nut graf:"
It is the Precision Time System, invented in the 1990s by the former N.B.A. referee Mike Costabile. Each time the referee blows the whistle, the game clock, if it is running, stops. To start the clock, the referee reaches to the box on the belt and pushes a button.
The whistle stops the clock, but a human -- in this case the ref, rather than the clock operator like in the olden days -- has to physically start the clock by pushing a button with his finger.
So I sit corrected in crediting the clock operator with giving Sam another fraction of a second to complete that play. But I sit by my assertion that Sam was the beneficiary of an extra couple tenths of a second thanks to a human being responsible for starting the clock.
Catching the basketball at the top of his leap, coming to the ground, jumping back up and launching a shot, with the ball leaving his hands on time ... I'm still pretty sure that's impossible to do in .8 of a second. But I'm downright giddy that it happened!!!
-
Beyond just the huge road win what I dig about that 3-pointer with 0.8 left on clock; in all my years of watching college Hoops, the rule-of-thumb I've heard is that it takes a minimum of 0.8 seconds to get a shot off. So we now have at least one sample of that happening to include a successful shot. For our team. On the road. It sorta proves the rule.
And, I've seen it mentioned the powers-that-be might create a rule change perhaps formalizing that rule-of-thumb (although I doubt it will happen). Were it to happen, it would be yet another instance of a rule shaped by Marquette to include rules like the no-bumble-bee-uniforms rule (sometime in the early 70s, right?), the cannot-swap-free-throw-shooter rule (Marquette vs Missouri in NCAA tourney), and others, I'm sure, but for which I'm currently unaware.
So, just more of Marquette University being that much more a main thread which, throughout decades, shapes the sport of college Hoops. Pretty cool, huh?
goinUptown (aka/AlsDisciple)
.3 to get a shot off.
-
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.
But that's what MAKES it possible. The clock is operated by a human being (the ref) and that human being determines within reason when the ball is touched by a player, he then starts the clock. There is no sensor in the ball and every player to fire off in a nanosecond when it is touched. There was nothing unreasonable about when the clock started. We've all seen instances where it starts slow. I've seen it where it has started before ball was touched, and they have to it again.
In a case like this, what is possible is the dynamics setup in the process. Respect the process. ;)
-
But that's what MAKES it possible. The clock is operated by a human being and that human being determines within reason when the ball is touched by a player, he/she then starts the clock. There is no sensor in the ball and every player to fire off in a nanosecond when it is touched. There was nothing unreasonable about when the clock started. We've all seen instances where it starts slow. I've seen it where it has started before ball was touched, and they have to it again.
In a case like this, what is possible is the dynamics setup in the process. Respect the process. ;)
I agree with all of this. But a human being can't catch a basketball in the air, land, jump and shoot in 0.8 seconds of real time. The ability of other human beings being involved to start the clock in a timely manner and then judge whether the ball was released in time make it possible, so I agree with you that it can be done in 0.8 seconds of basketball time.
-
I agree with all of this. But a human being can't catch a basketball in the air, land, jump and shoot in 0.8 seconds of real time. The ability of other human beings being involved to start the clock in a timely manner and then judge whether the ball was released in time make it possible, so I agree with you that it can be done in 0.8 seconds of basketball time.
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/
-
I agree with all of this. But a human being can't catch a basketball in the air, land, jump and shoot in 0.8 seconds of real time. The ability of other human beings being involved to start the clock in a timely manner and then judge whether the ball was released in time make it possible, so I agree with you that it can be done in 0.8 seconds of basketball time.
Well it's seem reasonable that it's not possible and most here seem to agree. But has it actually been proven or is another case of breaking the 4 minute mile?
-
Markus inbounded the ball because with his lack of height he needs to create space to get off his shot.....with 8 tenths left there is no time for that......so Wojo used him in the best way he could given the circumstances,,,,,,,,he trusted his to make the pass to option A....Sam..6'8....or option B Joey....6'9
-
He didn't get it off. Caught a break. You can zoom in. Looks pretty definitive to me.
Oh well lol
https://twitter.com/__sindelar/status/1083219880105725952?s=19
Speaking of no good, how about the Blue Jay cheerleaders?
-
Speaking of no good, how about the Blue Jay cheerleaders?
I thought the Jay cheerleaders had nice guns!! ;)
-
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.
-
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/
... and remember we are talking about Sam Hauser. He's the man!
Glad we won. Lets enjoy it and leave the debates to the games we loose. How many other events took place in the game that could have changed the outcome? How many fouls were not called, how many non fouls were called, how many walks were not called, how much time was gained or lost due to other timing errors throughout the game? The list goes on. The point is after thousands and thousands of events that occurred in this game the best judgement and technology available resulted in us winning. With the parity in the BE expect more close games. And yes we will also have some close losses. So play the games and enjoy them and remember these are the games you will remember 20 years from now, if not for the win then for the controversy.
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
He didn't get it off. Caught a break. You can zoom in. Looks pretty definitive to me.
Oh well lol
https://twitter.com/__sindelar/status/1083219880105725952?s=19
You still can't tell by 100% That ball could be off his finger.
-
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.
It might, but can you slide a piece of paper between ball and finger there? Can't tell with that angle. Glad it worked out for us.
-
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.
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.
-
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
The difference is the SJU was not reviewable and was just an error in real time. That one is more forgivable. I’m not sure how they got the Markus one wrong.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Exactly.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
What actually is the understood rule for what can be done in 0.3? Is that catch, jump and shoot? Or is that catch and shoot?
If it's catch, jump and shoot (and I don't know if it is...that's why I asked), I don't think it's necessarily impossible. I've seen it said that Michael Jordan's greatest hang time ever was 0.92 seconds. And that's from take off to landing. If that's the case, then why couldn't 0.5 to be in the air and land and 0.3 to jump and shoot be 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.
so what, it counted!
0.3 seconds is catch and shoot btw
-
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.
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.
-
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, 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???).
-
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?
The rule says .3. You're raving about how .8 is an impossibility. Why?
As for your straw man about about a couple of dribbles, yada yada, who cares? That's not what happened.
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???).
Google is your friend.
-
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?
That’s not what he did. The clock doesn’t start till he touches it so all he had to do was make the catch, jump and release.
-
Raving? LOL. One of your favorite tactics.
Nobody is doing any tactics. Some just find it odd that you're trying so hard to argue MU didn't deserve to win, even though what happened on the final play is exactly what happens on all such plays. Perhaps you should petition the NCAA to install sensors on players so timing could be more precise.
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?
As ATL MU Warrior notes, that's not what happened.
Also, you're describing this as if they were each individual acts, rather than a fluid motion in which he jumped and shot at the same time.
The NBA (and numerous leagues that have followed through with the same rule) has determined that a player can get off a shot in .3 seconds. So, yeah, .8 doesn't seem impossible.
-
As ATL MU Warrior notes, that's not what happened.
Also, you're describing this as if they were each individual acts, rather than a fluid motion in which he jumped and shot at the same time.
The NBA (and numerous leagues that have followed through with the same rule) has determined that a player can get off a shot in .3 seconds. So, yeah, .8 doesn't seem impossible.
Everyone agrees that you can catch and shoot in .3 seconds. So, the question is whether you can do the rest of what Sam did (fall and jump) in .5 seconds.
-
what happened on the final play is exactly what happens on all such plays. Perh So, yeah, .8 doesn't seem impossible.
If true, I would agree - absolutely possible to catch and shoot in .8 - but not if you have to jump to catch the ball and land before you go back up to shoot.
-
That’s not what he did. The clock doesn’t start till he touches it so all he had to do was make the catch, jump and release.
When I watch the replay he is in the air when he first touches it. Had to land, jump and release in .8.
-
This thread has turned into the Warren Commision.
Sam Hauser was just a patsy!!
-
From what I could see, I thought it was going to be waved off. I think the refs did not want to decide the game. There would be more pressure on them to make a decision, if the shot was a game winning shot. I felt that the fact that it was a game tying shot allowed the refs to take the easy way out and vote for overtime.
-
Speaking of no good, how about the Blue Jay cheerleaders?
Glad ewe said it Rican. Creighton is an equal opportunity school, hey?
-
This thread has turned into the Warren Commision.
Sam Hauser was just a patsy!!
It was Sacar from the grassy knoll.
-
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?
The jump to catch the ball is a non-factor. Clock doesn't start until you touch it.
-
Just to add to this pointless conversation. Michael Jordan was at .91 from the foul line. Assume Sam is Jordan and was at the peak of his jump. You'd be at .46 for the coming down part of the jump (after he catches it) with a healthy .34 available for the shot. If you think Sam is more of a Jordan Farmar type of athlete, you have .38 available for the shot. Count it.
https://youtu.be/vZqVq5LrdQQ
Also the TV overlay clock onscreen is always behind the real clock by about .1-.2. Can't use that.
-
The jump to catch the ball is a non-factor. Clock doesn't start until you touch it.
??? He caught/touched the ball at the top of his jump.
-
??? He caught/touched the ball at the top of his jump.
Yes. You are making it sound like jumping up to catch the ball should be included in the .8 seconds. It isn't. The time elapsed included landing and going back up. He still might not have been able to do that, but jumping up is a non-factor is elapsed time.
-
??? He caught/touched the ball at the top of his jump.
Yup, but a human being has to see it, confirm it, press a button, have that signal go to the clock and start. Let me ask you this, as you watch the replay, do you feel the clock started LATER than what is normal and appropriate for basketball? We can all agree that the nanosecond the ball touches Hauser the clock doesn't start, but it doesn't ever for any basketball play because this isn't a situation where there is a touchpad in the pool for Michael Phelps to touch in the 100 Meter butterfly.
I don't see where the clock started any later than it would under normal circumstances, and that should be the measuring stick because that is what is used as the standard in a basketball game. Until we get to a point where sensors are in bodies and the ball, that's the process.
When his left foot hits the ground, the clock is at .7 or .6 already, tough to tell. Ref did his job at that point, the clock is the clock once it starts.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/pzhDh39VO1rjK0OVKy/giphy.gif)
-
Yes. You are making it sound like jumping up to catch the ball should be included in the .8 seconds. It isn't. The time elapsed included landing and going back up. He still might not have been able to do that, but jumping up is a non-factor is elapsed time.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that he didn't just "catch and shoot" which certainly be accomplished in .8. The fact that he touched the ball at the top of his jump (and therefore had to return to the ground before starting his shooting motion) is what makes .8 not realistic.
-
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that he didn't just "catch and shoot" which certainly be accomplished in .8. The fact that he touched the ball at the top of his jump (and therefore had to return to the ground before starting his shooting motion) is what makes .8 not realistic.
Maybe you break out a stopwatch and time Sam's shot for yourself. Let us know the results.
-
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that he didn't just "catch and shoot" which certainly be accomplished in .8. The fact that he touched the ball at the top of his jump (and therefore had to return to the ground before starting his shooting motion) is what makes .8 not realistic.
But, it's widely accepted that a human can catch and shoot in .3. So, you're arguing that a human cannot return to the ground and start a shooting motion in .5. I'm not convinced.
Incidentally, I'm also not convinced Sam got the shot off in time.
-
That’s not what he did. The clock doesn’t start till he touches it so all he had to do was make the catch, jump and release.
He was in the air when he caught it, so he had to land first. It is a dumb debate, in that it is irrelevant. Don't why I keep responding.
-
Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that he didn't just "catch and shoot" which certainly be accomplished in .8. The fact that he touched the ball at the top of his jump (and therefore had to return to the ground before starting his shooting motion) is what makes .8 not realistic.
Lenny
Reminds me of how Al would argue with the refs to put 0.X back on the clock because a half a second could make all the difference. At the time I thought Al was being Al but now I realize he was genius. Attention to detail yields results.
-
Nobody is doing any tactics. Some just find it odd that you're trying so hard to argue MU didn't deserve to win, even though what happened on the final play is exactly what happens on all such plays. Perhaps you should petition the NCAA to install sensors on players so timing could be more precise.
Who said MU didn't deserve to win?
I said clearly that without the extra time required for the ref/clock operator to start the clock (probably about 0.2 seconds, which is perfectly normal and standard) Sam wouldn't have gotten the shot off in time, because he took longer than 0.8 seconds in real time from first touch to release. I said it was normal, not an error. Not sure what you and Cheeks are even arguing about.
Based on the information available at the time to the refs, they did nothing wrong and since they called it good on the floor, based on the video evidence they had, the call should have stood.
-
I was at a Speedway this morning (Friday) getting gas in North Carolina. They have the pumps with video screens. They were showing Sam's miracle shot.
-
Maybe you break out a stopwatch and time Sam's shot for yourself. Let us know the results.
I actually did this because I was bored and obviously it is far from scientific but most of my tests ran from .86 to .94. .8 on the clock also means the real time could be anywhere from .80 to .89 seconds.
Closer than I thought.
-
Based on the information available at the time to the refs, they did nothing wrong and since they called it good on the floor, based on the video evidence they had, the call should have stood.
Excellent point.
If they had called it no good from the floor, that would have stood as well. Simply too close to call.
-
I actually did this because I was bored and obviously it is far from scientific but most of my tests ran from .86 to .94. .8 on the clock also means the real time could be anywhere from .80 to .89 seconds.
Closer than I thought.
Since the adjusted the clock from .6 to .8, wouldn't that mean that .80 was on the clock? Not .81 to possibly .89? I do not know for sure but am curious.
-
Sam's shot was discussed on Waddle and Silvy with Big Cat. (Lamenting his CU -6).
Was the first conversation I have heard about the game where Markus was never mentioned.
-
I thought the Jay cheerleaders had nice guns!! ;)
I think there was a general consensus in that regard. 8-)
-
I was at a Speedway this morning (Friday) getting gas in North Carolina. They have the pumps with video screens. They were showing Sam's miracle shot.
Wuz Nads behind da register, hey?
-
Lenny
Reminds me of how Al would argue with the refs to put 0.X back on the clock because a half a second could make all the difference. At the time I thought Al was being Al but now I realize he was genius. Attention to detail yields results.
He was always lobbying to get an edge, Crash - and that was indeed part of his genius.
-
Who said MU didn't deserve to win?
I said clearly that without the extra time required for the ref/clock operator to start the clock (probably about 0.2 seconds, which is perfectly normal and standard) Sam wouldn't have gotten the shot off in time, because he took longer than 0.8 seconds in real time from first touch to release. I said it was normal, not an error. Not sure what you and Cheeks are even arguing about.
Based on the information available at the time to the refs, they did nothing wrong and since they called it good on the floor, based on the video evidence they had, the call should have stood.
+1
-
But, it's widely accepted that a human can catch and shoot in .3. So, you're arguing that a human cannot return to the ground and start a shooting motion in .5. I'm not convinced.
Incidentally, I'm also not convinced Sam got the shot off in time.
My son and I watched last night again. The angle from behind Sam, I agree. The angle from the side where they superimpose the clock, looks like he got it off. But very very close
-
Yup, but a human being has to see it, confirm it, press a button, have that signal go to the clock and start. Let me ask you this, as you watch the replay, do you feel the clock started LATER than what is normal and appropriate for basketball? We can all agree that the nanosecond the ball touches Hauser the clock doesn't start, but it doesn't ever for any basketball play because this isn't a situation where there is a touchpad in the pool for Michael Phelps to touch in the 100 Meter butterfly.
I don't see where the clock started any later than it would under normal circumstances, and that should be the measuring stick because that is what is used as the standard in a basketball game. Until we get to a point where sensors are in bodies and the ball, that's the process.
When his left foot hits the ground, the clock is at .7 or .6 already, tough to tell. Ref did his job at that point, the clock is the clock once it starts.
Wow, Return of Chicos and/or WarriorDad ... that actually is a reasonable point.
-
I think the refs did not want to decide the game.
Maybe the refs really were thinking this way, but I hope not.
Folks often use the "refs shouldn't decide the game" argument to suggest that refs shouldn't call a foul with 1 second left in a game.
Because if the ref DOESN'T call an obvious foul, he's not "deciding the game"?
-
Maybe the refs really were thinking this way, but I hope not.
Folks often use the "refs shouldn't decide the game" argument to suggest that refs shouldn't call a foul with 1 second left in a game.
Because if the ref DOESN'T call an obvious foul, he's not "deciding the game"?
It’s the basketball version of the trolley problem. Passive inaction seems less terrible that proactive action when someone gets hurt in either scenario.
-
Wow, Return of Chicos and/or WarriorDad ... that actually is a reasonable point.
I didn't say a word about this topic.
-
+1
Going frame by frame as they did on the broadcast, the ball was on his fingertips at 0:00.01 and off at 0:00.00. There was no 0:00.005 frame to differentiate, so you have to go with the call on the floor. Lucky? Probably, but I'll take it.
I think you are overthinking it. If the ball is off at 0:00.00, the shot is good. What good would a 0:00.005 frame do? Even if he was still touching the ball at 0:00.005 (or 0:00.00000000005 for that matter), that doesn't meant he didn't get it off in time.
At any rate I'm just happy they counted it, and I agree with all the posts that said that there wasn't enough video evidence to overturn the call on the court (as fully supported by a 5-page thread of people disagreeing). The fact that they said it was good originally was huge.
-
I think you are overthinking it.
All of you are overthinking it. Why can't you simply be happy that the call went our way and move on?
-
Space and time are relative. In the realm of theoretical physics, I believe Sam's shot is possible. Even if it occurred in an alternate dimension.
-
All of you are overthinking it. Why can't you simply be happy that the call went our way and move on?
On the money! (Thank you!)