MBB: Northwest Conference

[A Buc Forever]

Inbounder ran baseline. Shocked it was missed. Anybody know where theres a replay of last play?

"Let's just get this out of the way now please so you dont give me a headache Saturday night: The "refs are completely one sided," "homered," "they missed a key foul on insert Whitman player here and it totally changed the whole game," "Bridgeland whines," "the players are showboats."
"
How's the headache?

[blackhawks4]

Shoot sorry, A Buc—didn't mean to delete a post that you were quoting. Was trying to figure out how to upload pictures to this site (I FINALLY found the final play...on instagram—posted by tyrelpanter) and revise the same post. For some reason, I feel like pictures will go a lot further than "Take my word for it."

Look it's surprising that Whitworth won, but not unthinkable. I think I'm on record for saying they have a 10% chance. 1 out of 8 is 12.5%. That's about right. And when a game comes down to the buzzer, anything can happen, and that 10% chance I quoted is more like a 40%.  Not fair to magnify and scrutinize one play or blame refs. 40 minute game coming down to miliseconds. But when it's a last second shot, we're always going to look at it and wonder if they got it right.

So here it is.

Roach didn't get the shot off. Picture uploaded. Ball was in Roachs hand when backboard is lit up. I didn't even think of this until others commented—looked to me like he got it off. But in D3 we don't go to the monitors—so such is life.

Inbounder did travel as I called out as well. That wouldn't even be reviewable  at a higher level.

AGAIN—game that comes down to buzzer, comes down to who wins it—and Roach won it tonight with huge shot. WMN had chance and didn't.

[BluesBrother]

Fun game tonight! Looking forward to round 4 next Saturday (assuming Whitworth can even make it out of the first round; if CMS gets shipped up, I think my money would be on them again.)

Roach's game-winner was an amazing moment. Something he can remember fondly for the rest of his life.

If there is a rematch, I think Whitman wins by double digits.

Rat, you seem like a horrible person.

[D O.C.]

Rat, you seem like a horrible person.

Nope.

We say, "Welcome to the boards." (but do expect to see that applaud/smite meter look something like this by Monday night :
applaud 1 / smite 6 )

[OxyBob]

Rat, you seem like a horrible person.

Rat is sometimes a pest, but today I believe he's a Roach.

OxyBob

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

In real time, it didn't look like the clock started in time - and even with the extra time, it still didn't look like he got the shot off.  No one really cares, since Whitman is in anyway and the matchups won't change.  I was also surprised how low key the announcers were.  I've never seen a buzzer beater called like that, especially one with so much to question.  I guess that's the laid back style Whitman likes to promote.

It's probably better in the long run not to be undefeated in the post-season.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

In real time, it didn't look like the clock started in time - and even with the extra time, it still didn't look like he got the shot off.  No one really cares, since Whitman is in anyway and the matchups won't change.  I was also surprised how low key the announcers were.  I've never seen a buzzer beater called like that, especially one with so much to question.  I guess that's the laid back style Whitman likes to promote.

It's probably better in the long run not to be undefeated in the post-season.

It's available on demand on the Whitman stretch channel.  There's not great resolution, but I'm not exactly sure what the rule is about inbounding there.  The guy didn't move from side to side by much - not sure that's a call anyone will make there.  The clock definitely started late - more than 2.3 seconds went by before he got the shot off.  However, with the clock as it was, he did get the shot off in time - you can go frame by frame and that's pretty clear.

https://portal.stretchinternet.com/whitman/portal.htm?eventId=430738&streamType=video

[(509)Rat]

Rat, you seem like a horrible person.

Says the guy that's judging someone on a message board after being here for a month or two

Are you mad because I talked about Howell faking an injury or about blackhawks fandom?

The win may have been a good thing for the Whitworth players' psyche, but ultimately was meaningless as both teams will be back in Walla Walla next weekend to play more basketball.

[(509)Rat]

In real time, it didn't look like the clock started in time - and even with the extra time, it still didn't look like he got the shot off.  No one really cares, since Whitman is in anyway and the matchups won't change.  I was also surprised how low key the announcers were.  I've never seen a buzzer beater called like that, especially one with so much to question.  I guess that's the laid back style Whitman likes to promote.

It's probably better in the long run not to be undefeated in the post-season.

It's available on demand on the Whitman stretch channel.  There's not great resolution, but I'm not exactly sure what the rule is about inbounding there.  The guy didn't move from side to side by much - not sure that's a call anyone will make there.  The clock definitely started late - more than 2.3 seconds went by before he got the shot off.  However, with the clock as it was, he did get the shot off in time - you can go frame by frame and that's pretty clear.

https://portal.stretchinternet.com/whitman/portal.htm?eventId=430738&streamType=video

I can't remember, did the feed pan up to the game clock? The Whitman write up says that there were 2.8 seconds on the clock when Whitworth was to inbound the ball. I don't remember the graphic on the stream showing any tenths of a second after the 2. To be fair the Whitman write up also had a handful of spelling errors as well so...

[A Buc Forever]

Shoot sorry, A Buc—didn't mean to delete a post that you were quoting. Was trying to figure out how to upload pictures to this site (I FINALLY found the final play...on instagram—posted by tyrelpanter) and revise the same post. For some reason, I feel like pictures will go a lot further than "Take my word for it."

Look it's surprising that Whitworth won, but not unthinkable. I think I'm on record for saying they have a 10% chance. 1 out of 8 is 12.5%. That's about right. And when a game comes down to the buzzer, anything can happen, and that 10% chance I quoted is more like a 40%.  Not fair to magnify and scrutinize one play or blame refs. 40 minute game coming down to miliseconds. But when it's a last second shot, we're always going to look at it and wonder if they got it right.

So here it is.

Roach didn't get the shot off. Picture uploaded. Ball was in Roachs hand when backboard is lit up. I didn't even think of this until others commented—looked to me like he got it off. But in D3 we don't go to the monitors—so such is life.

Inbounder did travel as I called out as well. That wouldn't even be reviewable  at a higher level.

AGAIN—game that comes down to buzzer, comes down to who wins it—and Roach won it tonight with huge shot. WMN had chance and didn't.

Ryan Scott says he got it off.  Blackhawks says he didn't. Honestly, I don't think the resolution on the film is good enough to definitively say whether he got the shot off. If replay would have been allowed, there was not enough evidence to reverse the call. Had they said it was too late, same deal.  Replay would not have reversed the call.  Hard to argue with the call the refs made.  Honestly, I wish they would do away with replay.  Replay and the catch rule has messed up the NFL and it slows the games down way too much.

As for the traveling, the rule is NOT that they can't travel. The player has to keep one foot within a three foot space.  The player can jump, shuffle his or her feet. The inbounding players can move backwards as far as they want to.  Blackhawks--you have absolutely no case here.  The inbounding player for Whitworth shuffled his feet, but he did not move side to side at all. 

Some observations:

Sort of a fitting end to game three between these two teams.  Game four will hopefully measure up to the other 3.

I only got to watch the last 10 minutes (family games are a priority over alma mater games) but I really liked how Hernandez handled the press better than anyone else has.

I don't get this idea that Whitman is significantly better than Whitworth.  All three games have come down to the last second or millisecond). Whitman is more athletic, but Whitworth has guys that can shoot the lights out (so does Whitman, but not as many). The game does come down to putting the ball in the hoop and sometimes shooting teams win out.

[blackhawks4]

Ryan Scott says he got it off.  Blackhawks says he didn't. Honestly, I don't think the resolution on the film is good enough to definitively say whether he got the shot off. If replay would have been allowed, there was not enough evidence to reverse the call. Had they said it was too late, same deal.  Replay would not have reversed the call.  Hard to argue with the call the refs made.  Honestly, I wish they would do away with replay.  Replay and the catch rule has messed up the NFL and it slows the games down way too much.

As for the traveling, the rule is NOT that they can't travel. The player has to keep one foot within a three foot space.  The player can jump, shuffle his or her feet. The inbounding players can move backwards as far as they want to.  Blackhawks--you have absolutely no case here.  The inbounding player for Whitworth shuffled his feet, but he did not move side to side at all. 

Some observations:

Sort of a fitting end to game three between these two teams.  Game four will hopefully measure up to the other 3.

I only got to watch the last 10 minutes (family games are a priority over alma mater games) but I really liked how Hernandez handled the press better than anyone else has.

I don't get this idea that Whitman is significantly better than Whitworth.  All three games have come down to the last second or millisecond). Whitman is more athletic, but Whitworth has guys that can shoot the lights out (so does Whitman, but not as many). The game does come down to putting the ball in the hoop and sometimes shooting teams win out.

I'm going to preface these comments by saying this:  If Whitman wanted to win, they shouldn't have given up 3 offensive rebounds the possession before. 

Whitman also has NOT been playing well lately, and that was the case for this game.  In my opinion they're still playing with a "shoot first" mentality.  And when a team has so many weapons, it would be incredible to see them play with a pass first mentality.

Regarding the last two plays

Humor me:  Watch Tim Howell's possession:  Did he travel on the last call?  I dont see it.  I see two steps.  It's really irrelevant because he missed the shot anyways.  But ive been replaying the last play and noticed.

Next:  Inbounder is clearly shuffling his feet and fakes one way, then slides a few feet the other direction to make an inbound pass.  If the rule is in fact as A Buc states, that he has to stay within a 3 ft box, I would agree, no call is appropriate, he may have moved less than 3 ft.  If the rule is he has to keep a pivot foot down like the normal travelling call, there is no doubt he traveled.  That is what I though the rule was.  I could be incorrect.

Regarding the final shot, we have no way of knowing if clock started on time or didn't, so lets do away with that argument. 

Did he release on time? 

Ryan Scott--Check out the picture on the D3hoops lead article.  With the grainy quality of film (thanks again whitman), im willing to concede that i cant see definitive evidence on the tape.  Its so close.  I couldn't reverse a call.  BUT, look at the picture on the cover of D3Hoops.  Youll see that Roach actually realease the ball at the top of his jump (its still on his fingertips). That ball is not out of his hand in time. 

Nice play designed by Logie and bad defense by Blues.  Cant let Roach catch the ball on the run turning up court.  Need him to catch that with back to basket.

If Im the NCAA releasing a formal statement, its goes as follows:
1.  With 2 seconds left, Tim Howell's travel was not a travel.
2.  Citing credible poster, who would NOT lie, A Buc Forever, the inbounder did not move over 3 feet and he legally inbounded the ball.
3.  Regarding Roach's shot, because..and only because the film is on par with 1980's cable, there isnt sufficient evidence to overturn

[blackhawks4]

I don't get this idea that Whitman is significantly better than Whitworth.  All three games have come down to the last second or millisecond). Whitman is more athletic, but Whitworth has guys that can shoot the lights out (so does Whitman, but not as many). The game does come down to putting the ball in the hoop and sometimes shooting teams win out.

Whitman beat WW by 16 in first game.  Not close.

Whitman won by 1 at WW.

Whitworth beat WMN in 40 minutes and 1 seconds last game.

Whitman way better. Not close.   

Claremont is good.  Will beat WW in first round if matched up. 

Whitworths ONLY reputable win of the year was the last game over WMN.  Otherwise, I side with the D3hoops gasme who werent positive they were a tourney team without auto bid

[(509)Rat]

Otherwise, I side with the D3hoops gasme who werent positive they were a tourney team without auto bid

this is kinda like when you said Whitworth has never made it past the sweet 16. It was pretty obvious and nobody on any other thread was debating wether Whitworth would get a pool C bid  going in to the conference tourney championship game. They weren't first off the board but they weren't anywhere near sweating come selection time.

It's too bad the Linfield guys don't have a basketball following. The blatantly made up crap that comes from blackhawks wouldn't go unchecked on the football boards like it does here. Sorry in advance for upsetting you again BluesBrother

[D O.C.]

Well, we're getting there. 
Look over your shoulders.

[Gregory Sager]

Ryan Scott says he got it off.  Blackhawks says he didn't. Honestly, I don't think the resolution on the film is good enough to definitively say whether he got the shot off. If replay would have been allowed, there was not enough evidence to reverse the call. Had they said it was too late, same deal.  Replay would not have reversed the call.  Hard to argue with the call the refs made.  Honestly, I wish they would do away with replay.  Replay and the catch rule has messed up the NFL and it slows the games down way too much.

As for the traveling, the rule is NOT that they can't travel. The player has to keep one foot within a three foot space.  The player can jump, shuffle his or her feet. The inbounding players can move backwards as far as they want to.  Blackhawks--you have absolutely no case here.  The inbounding player for Whitworth shuffled his feet, but he did not move side to side at all. 

Some observations:

Sort of a fitting end to game three between these two teams.  Game four will hopefully measure up to the other 3.

I only got to watch the last 10 minutes (family games are a priority over alma mater games) but I really liked how Hernandez handled the press better than anyone else has.

I don't get this idea that Whitman is significantly better than Whitworth.  All three games have come down to the last second or millisecond). Whitman is more athletic, but Whitworth has guys that can shoot the lights out (so does Whitman, but not as many). The game does come down to putting the ball in the hoop and sometimes shooting teams win out.

I'm going to preface these comments by saying this:  If Whitman wanted to win, they shouldn't have given up 3 offensive rebounds the possession before. 

Whitman also has NOT been playing well lately, and that was the case for this game.  In my opinion they're still playing with a "shoot first" mentality.  And when a team has so many weapons, it would be incredible to see them play with a pass first mentality.

Regarding the last two plays

Humor me:  Watch Tim Howell's possession:  Did he travel on the last call?  I dont see it.  I see two steps.  It's really irrelevant because he missed the shot anyways.  But ive been replaying the last play and noticed.

Next:  Inbounder is clearly shuffling his feet and fakes one way, then slides a few feet the other direction to make an inbound pass.  If the rule is in fact as A Buc states, that he has to stay within a 3 ft box, I would agree, no call is appropriate, he may have moved less than 3 ft.  If the rule is he has to keep a pivot foot down like the normal travelling call, there is no doubt he traveled.  That is what I though the rule was.  I could be incorrect

Rule 7, Section 6, Article 8 of the NCAA men's basketball rulebook has this to say about end-line throw-ins that do not follow a made basket:

Art. 8. The following pertain to a designated spot:
a The designated spot is the location at which a thrower-in is presented
disposal of the ball out of bounds as in 4-11.1.a through .c.
b. The designated spot shall be 3-feet wide with no depth limitation.
c. The thrower-in must keep one foot on or over the designated spot until
the ball is released. Pivot foot restrictions and the traveling rule are not in
effect for a throw-in.

I didn't watch Saturday's Whit vs. Whit game, but as long as the inbounder kept at least one foot within that three-foot designated spot, he was perfectly within his rights to shuffle his feet back and forth.