Question about the free throws with 9.1 seconds left

[skyvue]

It was a lousy call. Watching it live, I thought it was a terrible call. There was no evidence of it nicking Woodard's hand (not even in the slow-mo video) and plenty of evidence -- live and in slo-mo -- that it went off of the Baylor guy's foot.

So how it initially got ruled as Baylor's ball, I cannot guess. I would have overruled it, if I'd been the official, as there was no video evidence whatsoever that it touched Woodard and plenty of evidence that it ricocheted off the Baylor player's foot.

They blew it twice.

 

[campbest]

It was a lousy call. Watching it live, I thought it was a terrible call. There was no evidence of it nicking Woodard's hand (not even in the slow-mo video) and plenty of evidence -- live and in slo-mo -- that it went off of the Baylor guy's foot.

So how it initially got ruled as Baylor's ball, I cannot guess. I would have overruled it, if I'd been the official, as there was no video evidence whatsoever that it touched Woodard and plenty of evidence that it ricocheted off the Baylor player's foot.

They blew it twice.

I thought it was odd they gave it to Baylor initially, too. With that said, bang bang play, it's conceivable to see why someone would think it touched Woodard.

 

[sdcloud9]

Saturday's Big 12 games were not a clinic for officials.

They were bad at Waco and Lawrence (t's, double fouls, etc.), imo.

 

[DenverSooner]

A kick has to be intentional, and it wasn't. Woodard dribbled it off the Baylor player's foot. On the replay I couldn't tell if it hit Woodard's finger or not, but I can understand why there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. If they had initially called it out on Bayor, then there wasn't enough evidence to reverse the call the other way.

I don't understand why it took so long to make the call and set the time. I guess they wanted to be sure.

JMHO

He moved his foot toward the ball so I am not sure how you can say it definitely wasn't a kick. I could understand the position that he was just taking a step and not trying to kick the ball but Woodard most certainly did not dribble it off his stationary foot.

I agree with Sky that it was a bad call but I can also agree the video evidence wasn't perfect. I would have reversed it but I am biased so I shouldn't be the one making that decision.

 

[JBaker]

I thought it was odd they gave it to Baylor initially, too. With that said, bang bang play, it's conceivable to see why someone would think it touched Woodard.

Especially odd considering the original ruling the official made was that it was dribbled off Woodard's foot, which wasn't even CLOSE to the case. It was almost like he was just making up what happened.

 

[scrybe]

Especially odd considering the original ruling the official made was that it was dribbled off Woodard's foot, which wasn't even CLOSE to the case. It was almost like he was just making up what happened.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. When the replay made it apparent that the original call was bogus, the Sooners should have been given the ball.

 

[AdaSooner]

Especially odd considering the original ruling the official made was that it was dribbled off Woodard's foot, which wasn't even CLOSE to the case. It was almost like he was just making up what happened.

I can see why the official thought it went off of Woodard's foot. But judging by the replay, there is no way he could have been certain of his call. Believe it or not, plays that occur close to an official like that one can be the most difficult to see clearly sometimes.

The official should have asked a member of his crew for help with the call. If no one saw it, a held ball should have been called and the ball awarded to the team with the possession arrow.

I hate it when officials "guess" at a call, especially in a situation like that. It's best to swallow your pride and eliminate the guesswork by asking for help. It's good the officials went to the replay monitor. But the die was pretty much cast in Baylor's favor by the original call.

 

[MsProudSooner]

I can see why the official thought it went off of Woodard's foot. But judging by the replay, there is no way he could have been certain of his call. Believe it or not, plays that occur close to an official like that one can be the most difficult to see clearly sometimes.

The official should have asked a member of his crew for help with the call. If no one saw it, a held ball should have been called and the ball awarded to the team with the possession arrow.

I hate it when officials "guess" at a call, especially in a situation like that. It's best to swallow your pride and eliminate the guesswork by asking for help. It's good the officials went to the replay monitor. But the die was pretty much cast in Baylor's favor by the original call.

It seems that instead of looking at the replay to determine what really happened, they are looking at the replay for something, anything that might support the original call. There was plenty of evidence that the ball went off of the Baylor player's foot and never touched Jordan's foot. It wasn't at all clear whether it might have touched one of Jordan's fingers as it went out of bounds. So they go with what might have happened. :facepalm

 

[AdaSooner]

It seems that instead of looking at the replay to determine what really happened, they are looking at the replay for something, anything that might support the original call. There was plenty of evidence that the ball went off of the Baylor player's foot and never touched Jordan's foot. It wasn't at all clear whether it might have touched one of Jordan's fingers as it went out of bounds. So they go with what might have happened. :facepalm

I agree with you. At the same time, the ball was so close to Woodard's fingers on the way out, they couldn't be sure that he wasn't the last to touch it. Thus, since there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the original call, they had to go with it. That's why I said the die had already been cast in Baylor's favor.

I want to add one more thing to my comments. Basketball officials have the toughest job in sports. They don't have time to think about what they saw like officials do in any sport you want to name. To make their job more difficult, basketball officials have to make dozens of calls in the course of a game by blowing their whistles within a second or two after the play takes place.

As a high school official for a number of years, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the men and women who devote their time to officiating basketball. I'm also more likely to critique the calls they make and criticize them when I see a call or an action I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I don't have an appreciation for how difficult it is to get every call right. Correction. It's virtually impossible to do that in every game.

 

[SoonerSpock]

I contend the replay shows that the ball was off of the Baylor player's foot only. Had the ball touched Woodard's finger the ball's rotation or path should have been altered at least slightly and the replay showed neither. Hence ball is off Baylor out of bounds and possession goes to OU. Anything else is an assumption it might have gone off of Woodard's finger and assumptions have no merit in making the ref's decision.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Would the officials have had the option of stopping play without awarding the ball to either team and then gone to replay to determine who got the ball?

 

[AdaSooner]

I contend the replay shows that the ball was off of the Baylor player's foot only. Had the ball touched Woodard's finger the ball's rotation or path should have been altered at least slightly and the replay showed neither. Hence ball is off Baylor out of bounds and possession goes to OU. Anything else is an assumption it might have gone off of Woodard's finger and assumptions have no merit in making the ref's decision.

That's the way I saw it, too. One thing we know for sure, the ball bounced off of the Baylor player's foot. On the flip side, I can't say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the ball didn't brush Jordan's fingers slightly on the way out.

And that's where indisputable evidence comes in. Since the initial call had Jordan causing the ball to go out of bounds, the officials stuck with the original call. If it had been ruled off of the Baylor player, the call would have gone in OU's favor, because the evidence didn't support reversing that call either.

Would the officials have had the option of stopping play without awarding the ball to either team and then gone to replay to determine who got the ball?

In a perfect world, yes. But not without getting the opinion of the other two officials and/or putting their heads together to talk about what they saw. If the official who made the call had given the trail officials a questioning look with his hands out to the side as if to say, "I'm not sure, did you see it?" he would have received the help he asked for. He didn't and the rest is history.

It's possible, of course, that the two trail officials didn't have a clear view of what took place. After all, it was technically the baseline official's call, as he was the closest one to the play. We've got to assume that if one of them was sure the original call was not correct, he would have stepped in immediately to reverse it. That doesn't happen often, but all of us have seen officials do that over the years.

 

[StatGeek]

It looked to me that the baseline official who ruled that the ball went off of Woodard indicated that the ball hit his thigh, which of couse is a joke. I maintain that these replays are a waste of everyone's time. Bad calls happen, it is a part of the game. Arbitrarily going to the monitor on a few of them is a bad joke.

 

[DenverSooner]

It looked to me that the baseline official who ruled that the ball went off of Woodard indicated that the ball hit his thigh, which of couse is a joke. I maintain that these replays are a waste of everyone's time. Bad calls happen, it is a part of the game. Arbitrarily going to the monitor on a few of them is a bad joke.

He did but I suspect he used that signal to simply mean it went off the offensive player. Surely he did not think the ball went off Woodard's thigh and travel backwards.

 

[WaymanFan]

One thing we know for sure, the ball bounced off of the Baylor player's foot. On the flip side, I can't say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the ball didn't brush Jordan's fingers slightly on the way out.

You're exactly right, which is why Baylor got the ball. In the initial call, if the official saw that the ball went off the Baylor player's foot and awarded OU the ball, that wouldn't have been overturned, either. Since the ball came so close to Woodard's fingers, it basically "bailed out" the official who really made the wrong call.