Did a Timer Error Change the Outcome of a Division I College Basketball Game?

New submitter javakah writes: Controversy has erupted from the February 10th basketball game between Boise State and Colorado State, and speculation is that a timer may have made an incorrect assumption about the number of frames per second the game was recorded in, and ultimately lead to an erroneous result. With the game tied in overtime, Boise State had the ball out-of-bounds with 0.8 seconds left on the game clock. The ball was thrown in-bounds, the shot went in, and the game clock showed that the Boise State player got the shot off with 0.4 seconds left. However there was a problem: the game clock did not start until a fraction of a second after the in-bounds player touched the ball. Referees decided to use video replay to examine whether the player had gotten the shot off within 0.8 seconds or not. To do this, they used a timer embedded in the video replay system. This embedded timer indicated that 1.3 seconds had passed between the time that the in-bounds player touched the ball and when he got the shot off. (Read more, below.) With the result of the timer, referees ruled that Boise State's shot was invalid, and the game went on to double overtime where Boise State lost. Afterwards, the Mountain West Conference organization, in which both teams play, defended the outcome based upon the embedded timer showing that 1.3 seconds passed and released video of the replay footage. That footage however, clearly displays the game clock. It shows that the game clock, which was counting down from 0.8, counted down to 0.7 seconds 0.7 seconds after the in-bounds player touched the ball. The game clock also shows that there were 0.4 seconds left when the shot was taken. The problem arises however, that the video also reveals that embedded timer counted 1.3 seconds between when the ball was touched and when the shot was taken, meaning that in the time in which .3 seconds passed on the game clock, the embedded timer had counted .6 seconds. Speculation has now arisen that the video footage may have been taken at 60 fps, but that the embedded timer may have calculated the time with an assumption that the video was taken at 30 fps. This closely matches ESPN's own timing, showing that only 0.63 passed.

Comments

Re:human error wins again

[rhazz]

Isn't this why they are supposed to have "Game" clock, and not just use random timers from a video camera?

Stacking errors

[sjbe]

It's kind of a silly discussion because the clock is started and stopped by humans throughout the game. So even if an error was made here by some fraction of a second, there have to be numerous other errors throughout the rest of the game which aren't being considered with equal scrutiny. So yeah a timing error probably did cost one team the game but unless you go back across the entire game you'll never know which team got screwed by the timer.

It's like in football where the referee rather arbitrarily places the ball but then they measure it to the inch to see if they got a first down. The problem is with the spot, not with the measurement.

Re:Stacking errors

[rs1n]

The stacked errors should have impacted both teams equally (generally speaking) since it was a "constant" factor (same human performing the same error). That said, the shot was made under the same conditions that were "acceptable" for 99.99% of the entire game, and yet somehow isn't "good enough" for the last 0.8 seconds. Then there's the obvious "the overlay clock runs twice as fast as the game clock" issue.

my old high school basketball coach said

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to the outcome of the game to be determined by referees and shot clocks, then you need to put enough points on board so that there's no doubt that you've won.

(ok, I didn't actually play basketball in hs, but if I had, I think the old coach would have said this the players)

Be accountable

[sjbe]

If you don't want to the outcome of the game to be determined by referees and shot clocks, then you need to put enough points on board so that there's no doubt that you've won.

I coach a wrestling team and that is more or less exactly what I tell my team. If you don't put enough points on the board then you risk having the referee decided the match in a way not favorable to you. If that happens you have no one to blame but yourself. We insist on accountability and no whining. If it doesn't go our way we own it and figure out how to make sure we do better next time. If a bad call is made it is my job as the coach to try to get things set right but at the end of the day the goal is to leave no doubt as to the outcome even in the fact of bad calls.

The problem with American sports

[ledow]

That everything is so very precise with regards to timing and distance. 5 yards back. 0.4 seconds. It's a load of crap.

The game is over when the person in charge decides it's over and provides a signal that ends the game at that point and/or when the last point has been scored. Not when some arbitrary timer expires, and really annoyingly, not when the ball thrown before that arbitrary time is given any time it needs to land in the basket after that (because, if you are going to have a hard time limit, have a hard time limit!).

It's what bores me about a lot of sport - arbitrary rules that make no sense and rely on all kinds of unnecessary technology to play, rather than just being a sport. Even down to "did the ball cross this line" or whatever. If the judge says it did, it did. If he's sure, by all means check. But when you're into millimetre analysis, it's just boring and no longer a sport but one long replay.

Same thing with Formula One. If you need 0.00001th of a second to determine the winner, it's too close and too boring. Similarly, "batting averages" - it's nonsense to state these to so many decimal places.

Sport turned into commercial gain by the ever-shrinking boundary of error isn't actually fun, to play or to spectate.