The Screw in St. Lou (video evidence)

[Rosewood]

Wow, interesting indeed. Although really, in this game you can point to sooooo many different things for BOTH teams to say things could have ended up differently.

For example:

We fouled P'Allen (on purpose) several times in the last 20 secs or so to try and stop the clock...the ref's never called it and we ended up with the steal. Now had Creighton got the foul like they should have they probably would have made it to where Toure's 3 didn't matter that much anyway.


Just saying, as upset as I was initially....I'm over it. If for no other reason than it won't do any good anyway.

This all comes back to "whole new game" for me (and a little bit of Chaos theory). Everything that happened up to the last 1.9 seconds is moot. The scenario that matters is that CU had the ball with 1.9 seconds on the clock and was down by 1. The last play is the only play you can get wrong or right and guarantee the outcome of the game.

[SB Shock]

Questions I have is this: Does the time keeper go off the baseline ref arm, or the mid-court ref arm?

If I go off when the arm of the baseline ref drops, the "revised" clock starts to soon. The mid-court ref goes out of the picture unfortunately to do any timings. There are some other views of this play, don't know whether it was fox or not or local media cameras. It would have helped if fox was HD.

I did 130 timings, I had 104 timings under 1.9 seconds, 26 over 1.9 seconds.

Max: 1.98
Min: 1.71
Avg: 1.839
Standard Deviation: 0.073

Overall there is approximately a 21% probability that time exceeded 1.9 seconds based on the baseline ref arm movement.

Now if the baseline ref arm movement was slow compared to when the ball was actually touched then that probability goes up of course. But it is to hard to really tell in this view to determine that.

If the scorekeeper was going off the mid-court ref, he may have been shielded from actually seeing when the ball was touched initially.

I think the lesson to be learned is just be better enough so you don't have to depend on accuracy of human responses.

[Veritas]

How does one explain that The Lutzer and more importantly our own AD Sexton agreed with the call?

[OTR Shockfan]

How does one explain that The Lutzer and more importantly our own AD Sexton agreed with the call?

It's called politics

[shockrah]

Nuts and bolts, nuts and bolts........

[Veritas]

How does one explain that The Lutzer and more importantly our own AD Sexton agreed with the call?

It's called politics

Perhaps, but it would have been nice for Sexton to say something along the lines of "reviewing the tape was inconclusive. It was a close call that could have gone the Shockers way and does not negate WSU's amazing comeback".
To read The Lutz column, it seems that there was no doubt that the shot was made in time. However, after reviewing the video posted on Shockernet, I'm not convinced in the least. In the very least, it was an extremely close call.

[t7017s]

Ok, more evidence...

I took both the KSN video and the FSN video and looked at them frame by frame. I zoomed in, I enhanced, I put Adobe Premiere Pro through the works. I came to one undeniable conclusion. Two seconds even passed from the time Woodfox touched the ball to when he released.

There were two other angles available that you saw when you watched the game. One is from the other side of the court, like KSN's. The other is a half court shot that is absolutely perfect. Unfortunately, FSN never showed these two shots at real speed. They were slowing the tape down on playback, and not be a constant factor. HOWEVER, these two shots helped me find other visual clues, like a massive series of camera flashes going off the instant after the ball releases. This helped me go back to the real time video I had and confirm my exact 2 second count. If y'all tell me that at some point FSN played the half court angle at real time I'll go back and find it.

Notes:
I also frame by framed the out of bounds. 1.9 is a good call on the clock.
The video is at 30 frames per second. So on the big red clock, each tick is one frame of video, or 1/30th of a second.
I'm not focusing on when the clock started or any of that. If you watch the video you will see the board go red, indicating 0.0 seconds when the TV clock is still between .2 and .3. There is going to be that kind of lag because the game clock you see on TV live comes from a camera pointing at the clock. I am sure you have noticed that you will lose the clock some times if there is a massive backboard shaking dunk or if someone runs into the clock and breaks it. What I focused on was this: How long from touch to release? How long was he supposed to take.

The answer is he took one tenth of a second too long.

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI2pTi-sZWk Please vote 5 star!

High quality h264: http://rosewood.shackspace.com/shox/evidence.mp4 (20mb file)
Mirror High quality h264: http://ilrosewood.com/evidence.mp4 (20mb file)

No audio as it really isn't needed here.

My conclusion: On pure fact, the shot should not have counted. Period. End of discussion. They didn't get the call right. I don't know how to put that any other way. He took two seconds flat. The clock was 1.9.

That said, when you add in the ol human element, I can't expect them to get the call right there on the floor. One tenth of a second is tough in terms of getting the clock started, etc. etc. But I would have expected them to get it right at the table. The over riding thought should be "let's get the call RIGHT."

Now, Elgin is a whole different story. On the surface you think "Hey, he got out in front of this one. Nothing to hide, etc. etc." But then you see these two videos and then you know he got it wrong. So that leads me to WHY and that is the question that bothers me the most.

Dude it counted. your red clock jumps from 1.30 seconds to 2 instantly. Your red clock failed to count from 1.3 seconds to 2.00 seconds. I think you lined everything else up correct but your red clocks CLEARLY jump from 1.3 to 2.0. Looks to me like he got the shot off in time from the (what should be) correct red clock timing. You may want to look at your work again.

[shockrah]

Ok, more evidence...

I took both the KSN video and the FSN video and looked at them frame by frame. I zoomed in, I enhanced, I put Adobe Premiere Pro through the works. I came to one undeniable conclusion. Two seconds even passed from the time Woodfox touched the ball to when he released.

There were two other angles available that you saw when you watched the game. One is from the other side of the court, like KSN's. The other is a half court shot that is absolutely perfect. Unfortunately, FSN never showed these two shots at real speed. They were slowing the tape down on playback, and not be a constant factor. HOWEVER, these two shots helped me find other visual clues, like a massive series of camera flashes going off the instant after the ball releases. This helped me go back to the real time video I had and confirm my exact 2 second count. If y'all tell me that at some point FSN played the half court angle at real time I'll go back and find it.

Notes:
I also frame by framed the out of bounds. 1.9 is a good call on the clock.
The video is at 30 frames per second. So on the big red clock, each tick is one frame of video, or 1/30th of a second.
I'm not focusing on when the clock started or any of that. If you watch the video you will see the board go red, indicating 0.0 seconds when the TV clock is still between .2 and .3. There is going to be that kind of lag because the game clock you see on TV live comes from a camera pointing at the clock. I am sure you have noticed that you will lose the clock some times if there is a massive backboard shaking dunk or if someone runs into the clock and breaks it. What I focused on was this: How long from touch to release? How long was he supposed to take.

The answer is he took one tenth of a second too long.

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI2pTi-sZWk Please vote 5 star!

High quality h264: http://rosewood.shackspace.com/shox/evidence.mp4 (20mb file)
Mirror High quality h264: http://ilrosewood.com/evidence.mp4 (20mb file)

No audio as it really isn't needed here.

My conclusion: On pure fact, the shot should not have counted. Period. End of discussion. They didn't get the call right. I don't know how to put that any other way. He took two seconds flat. The clock was 1.9.

That said, when you add in the ol human element, I can't expect them to get the call right there on the floor. One tenth of a second is tough in terms of getting the clock started, etc. etc. But I would have expected them to get it right at the table. The over riding thought should be "let's get the call RIGHT."

Now, Elgin is a whole different story. On the surface you think "Hey, he got out in front of this one. Nothing to hide, etc. etc." But then you see these two videos and then you know he got it wrong. So that leads me to WHY and that is the question that bothers me the most.

Dude it counted. your red clock jumps from 1.30 seconds to 2 instantly. Your red clock failed to count from 1.3 seconds to 2.00 seconds. I think you lined everything else up correct but your red clocks CLEARLY jump from 1.3 to 2.0. Looks to me like he got the shot off in time from the (what should be) correct red clock timing. You may want to look at your work again.

Review his post again. He is counting FRAMES. There are 30 frames in a second. Or another way of looking at it, one second equals 30 frames.
Dig?

[1979Shocker]

Questions I have is this: Does the time keeper go off the baseline ref arm, or the mid-court ref arm?

If I go off when the arm of the baseline ref drops, the "revised" clock starts to soon. The mid-court ref goes out of the picture unfortunately to do any timings. There are some other views of this play, don't know whether it was fox or not or local media cameras. It would have helped if fox was HD.

I think he goes off the mid-court ref's arm.

The replayed they did on FSMW showed the camera angle where you could see the mid-court ref lower his arm. I thought you could barely see his arm start to lower right below he went out of view at 0.16 seconds in Rosewood's video.

[WuDrWu]

If you determine that there are 1.9 seconds (and I have yet to see evidence that this is accurate, and I hope we do see soon, but for the sake of this discussion let's give it to them) based on replay when the clock should have stopped (not factoring when the whistle blew or reaction time by clock operator) then you MUST do the same when starting it back up.

While close, the evidence tells me we won. From here forward, I will refer to this game as a victory. Listen to the radio broadcast, it stops at 2:22:04 when Mike proclaims and I quote, "It's OVER!".

Winning record (17-15), 2-1 against Creighton. Pretty decent year and a nice step forward for the program. It's unfortunate that the team gets cheated from moving forward, but only 5 teams will win their last game and we are 1 of those 5.


62-61 Shocks win.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

If you determine that there are 1.9 seconds (and I have yet to see evidence that this is accurate, and I hope we do see soon, but for the sake of this discussion let's give it to them) based on replay when the clock should have stopped (not factoring when the whistle blew or reaction time by clock operator) then you MUST do the same when starting it back up.

While close, the evidence tells me we won. From here forward, I will refer to this game as a victory. Listen to the radio broadcast, it stops at 2:22:04 when Mike proclaims and I quote, "It's OVER!".

Winning record (17-15), 2-1 against Creighton. Pretty decent year and a nice step forward for the program. It's unfortunate that the team gets cheated from moving forward, but only 5 teams will win their last game and we are 1 of those 5.


62-61 Shocks win.

Will this go down as one of those officially disputed games, like KU-MU football where you check the media guide and KU says they won, and MU says they won?

I hope so. I think it's time to start throwing PC out the window. You take the officials out of the equation. They didn't have the time, equipment, and training to evaluate properly. Although I would like to know if they had all the angles to look at, or just the one.

Putz can ki$$ mine. Or he could earn a little respect by reviewing the tapes, pointing them out tirelessly, and demanding a new explanation from Elgin. He likes to rock the boat and be anti-establishment. PROVE IT.

They can't change what happened, or the tournament now. We'll never know what would have happened with ISU. But getting credit for the win would give us our plus .500 record vs. D-1 and I would say guarantees us a post season of some sort, which these young men have EARNED.

[ISASO]

Here is Elgin's latest statement on the ending, from the Wichita Eagle this morning:

Elgin addressed the controversy again on the Fox Sports Network broadcast before the second semifinal game Saturday. The tape showed the ball bouncing away from Hannah and hitting the floor out of bounds with 1.9 seconds to play. The tape then shows the delay before the clock starts and Woodfox releasing the shot with around 0.7 seconds to play.

.7 seconds? How can that be?

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

If the clock is showing, it means that they say the delay is only .4, and he released the shot with .7 so why look further.....

[WuDrWu]

They can't change what happened, or the tournament now. We'll never know what would have happened with ISU. But getting credit for the win would give us our plus .500 record vs. D-1 and I would say guarantees us a post season of some sort, which these young men have EARNED.

Agreed. If we can convince the CBI of the truth then perhaps there is a chance....I doubt it but we can still talk about it for roughly 7 days.

[Rosewood]

Dude it counted. your red clock jumps from 1.30 seconds to 2 instantly. Your red clock failed to count from 1.3 seconds to 2.00 seconds. I think you lined everything else up correct but your red clocks CLEARLY jump from 1.3 to 2.0. Looks to me like he got the shot off in time from the (what should be) correct red clock timing. You may want to look at your work again.

1.30 is the same as 2. 1.30 means one second and 30 frames have passed.