PDA

View Full Version : FINAL SCORE: Pacers 90 - Raptors 88 Screenshot Analysis Inside



TMJ31
02-09-2013, 04:27 AM
Alright folks,

First of all, I am opening a new thread because I figured people might avoid last night's postgame thread in the wake of what happened. There was quite a bit of "lively discussion" between myself, and other posters about the final shot of regulation by Amir Johnson. Myself, and another poster firmly stated that we believed it was LATE and should have been disallowed. Others felt differently, and wanted some photographic proof. This thread is my attempt at providing that proof.

Now let me say first of all, I was watching the game on FSIndiana, and they had several much better and crisper angles during the lengthy replay timeout. Unfortunately, stupid NBA League Pass Broadband (which I had to use to take these screenshots on my computer) was playing the Raptors feed... :rolleyes: However, I was still able to get a few shots of some good angles, and hopefully you guys will see where I am going with this. But if anyone has the FSIndiana feed on your DVR, you will be able to see what I mean.

Secondly, I am NOT interested in debating whether or not the Pacers "Deserved" to lose this game because of mistakes we made, or things we SHOULD have done. This is simply a presentation and discussion of the ruling of this particular field goal.

Without further ado, I present to you the evidence of (another) game taken from the Pacers by the officials on a final play.


ANGLE 1: Opposite Baseline
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/1.png

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/10.png

Ok, so these first two screenshots are from the opposite baseline camera. Of the several angles shown, these are the least conclusive in my opinion, yet they were the ones that the announcers for the Raptors were pointing to as their concrete evidence of a good field goal. As you can see in both of these shots, which are just several frames apart, Amir Johnson appears to have his LEFT hand clear of the ball, but his right thumb and possible the "pad" of his palm still appears to be touching the ball. Again, this is the LEAST conclusive of the three angles. We cannot make a 100% definitive ruling based on this angle alone. Fortunately, we have...



ANGLE 2: Near Side Baseline

I am going to break these images down one by one.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/3.png

In this first image we see Johnson with BOTH hands clearly still touching the ball. His shooting hand is clearly still supporting the ball from underneath. There are 0.1 seconds on the clock with which he has to get the ball out of his hands.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/4.png

As you can see from the shot clock, the time is currently ticking down from 0.1 to 0.0. The game, at this exact moment in time, is OVER. We can see that Johnson has gotten his non-shooting hand clear of the ball, but his right hand, which had to "flick" forward to propel the shot towards the rim, is still in the middle of that motion. His thumb, several fingers and possibly a portion of the pad of his palm are still in contact with the ball as time expires.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/5.png

To further drive home the evidence from the second photo, here is a shot from several frames later. His right wrist has now mostly completed its forward "flicking" motion to propel the ball to the rim. Even now, in this shot, it appears as though his index finger at the very least may still be in contact with the ball, several milliseconds AFTER his thumb and several fingers were clearly in contact with the ball.

This angle definitely shows evidence to support the shot being late. But if you still aren't convinced, here's the magic bullet.



ANGLE 3: Sideline

Once again, I'll break these down one at a time.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/2.png

Alright, here is the first photo from this angle. Notice first and foremost that ALL the photos from this angle are already showing the basket "shot clock light" already bright red and illuminated. The game is over at this point. In this first picture, we can perhaps assume that Johnson's LEFT hand is still touching the ball, but we've already disproved that in the previous two series of photos. However, we know definitively based on those same first two angles that Johnson's RIGHT hand was at this very moment in time desperately trying to quickly finish its "flicking" shot motion. So here you see the clock EXPIRED and Johnson's "flick" has not yet occurred.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/7.png

Several frames have elapsed, and we now see Johnson's RIGHT hand clearly behind his LEFT hand. He is mid-way through his already explained "flick" motion. His LEFT hand is clearly off the ball, while his right fingers are still in the process of giving the ball its final tiny bit of propulsion towards the rim. With his fingers still touching the ball, the game is now at this point most certainly over.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/8.png

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. Several frames later we can see Johnson's LEFT hand now fully off the ball. His RIGHT index and middle finger have given the ball their last push towards the rim, but the argument could STILL be made that his ring finger and pinkie finger are still dangerously close to being in contact with the ball, having already established that he was touching it a couple milliseconds ago. Further evidence that this game is REALLY over at this point, 90-88 Pacers.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t241/Fazumar/rapsgame/9.png

FINALLY! A couple frames later and we can at last declare with certainty that Amir Johnson has released the shot. At this point, the game clock has been at 0.0 with red lights on for slightly longer than 0.1, closer to 0.15 or 0.175 in all actuality.



SO there you have it folks. Is this overkill? Yes. Is it beating a dead horse? Yep. Do I expect for the NBA to come look at this and suddenly reward us with our deserved 'W'. Fat chance!

However, I do hope that instead of everyone doing nothing but complain about our teams mistakes and things we SHOULD have done, that we may perhaps actually give some validity to the point that sometimes you really DO get a game stolen from you by a blown call. Remember the Denver game? The NBA had to come out and admit fault that time. This should be no different, although I would frankly be shocked if they did.

We made some mentally and physically tired plays down the stretch of both regulation and overtime. We let this game get away from us when we should have won it going away by double figures. I do not dispute this point. However, despite all of that, when it came down to the end of regulation, the Pacers were winning the game 90-88. Unfortunately, the referees made the cowardly decision that the call was just TOO close, and "aw heck, just let them play 5 more minutes." Some people agree that perhaps that was the "right" way to officiate in that situation. I disagree completely. The NBA rulebook says that if time expires and a player has not fully released the ball at that precise moment, the shot is disallowed. In this situation, NOT enforcing that rule directly lead to the Pacers not instantly claiming a win, and instead the events of overtime took place and we lost.

Had that rule been enforced by the officials last night, things would have ended OFFICIALLY the way that they should have.

Pacers 90
Raptors 88

imawhat
02-09-2013, 07:56 AM
The ball is out of his hand in the first two photos. It's close, but you can clearly see the white backboard padding between his fingers, and that would be impossible with the ball still in the pad of his hand. The best angle would have been from the Pacers bench but the top pic is also sufficient.

Mr_Smith
02-09-2013, 08:09 AM
I think the first pic in angle 3 was the best indication that the shot didn't get off in time. I remember seeing that angle on FSI last night with the red backboard light on and was convinced it the shot was gonna count. Great analysis.

Pacertron
02-09-2013, 08:24 AM
I agree with you TMJ, I feel now just like I felt last night that the shot was no good. The basic issue here was that the refs called the shot good on the floor. In order to overturn that they need conclusive evidence to do so. And with the replays as close as they were, not conclusive enough to overturn the call. That's all it boils down to. I think it was late, and in my head we should have won the game on that basis. We still made some boneheaded plays. I was fuming last night, but time to move on to the next one.

DrFife
02-09-2013, 09:20 AM
I agree with you TMJ, I feel now just like I felt last night that the shot was no good. The basic issue here was that the refs called the shot good on the floor. In order to overturn that they need conclusive evidence to do so. And with the replays as close as they were, not conclusive enough to overturn the call. That's all it boils down to. I think it was late, and in my head we should have won the game on that basis. We still made some boneheaded plays. I was fuming last night, but time to move on to the next one.

One wonders if a "no good" call would have stood up upon review; likely yes - again, due to insufficient evidence to overturn. I suspect that refs are inclined (even trained?) not to make a "no good" call in end-of-game shots just as they are inclined not to call end-of-game fouls. (Except in Denver. :mad:)

xIndyFan
02-09-2013, 09:31 AM
not trying to be a dick, but you need a bigger TV to see the space. The Pacers played the officials replay on the overhead scoreboard and you could clearly see the space between the hand and the ball at the moment the light went off. It was the first set of views. Now the screen at the Fieldhouse is, what, 50 ft long? So the space is easier to see. The other views are not clear, but the first view on a big enough screen clearly shows that he got the ball off.

Cousy47
02-09-2013, 09:34 AM
I will not be surprised if The League decides the call was missed, just like Denver, but will not result in a W for the Pacers, just like Denver. Apologies cost nothing!

dohman
02-09-2013, 09:40 AM
Its amazing how close our losses are. Jazz Game, Denver Game, and now this game come to mind. All int he hands of the officials and each time we get the shaft. As Ron Washington said I guess that's just the way basketball goes..

BillS
02-09-2013, 09:51 AM
Serious question - is the rule that the shooting motion portion of the hand must have released or is it that no portion of the hand may be touching? I ask because it is almost always stated in terms of whether or not the ball was released, and this analysis seems to turn on a couple of fingers still touching after the motion was completed but the light had not come on - and that last is important, it is the light and not the clock digits that matters.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Foul on Smits
02-09-2013, 09:55 AM
I cant tell with the shot, but I turned this game on with 5 minutes to go and saw at 3 atrocious calls go against the Pacers and about 2 no calls that should have been called. I was furious. I think they took David West out of the game mentally. I think that's why he made such a boneheaded pass at the end there.

Phree Refill
02-09-2013, 09:56 AM
I would like to see a reply of Toronto's steal of David west's inbounds pass. From the one or two times I've seen it in real time it looked like it was very very close to being a back court violation on Toronto.

xIndyFan
02-09-2013, 09:58 AM
Serious question - is the rule that the shooting motion portion of the hand must have released or is it that no portion of the hand may be touching? I ask because it is almost always stated in terms of whether or not the ball was released, and this analysis seems to turn on a couple of fingers still touching after the motion was completed but the light had not come on - and that last is important, it is the light and not the clock digits that matters.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

The rule, as I understand it, is hand touching the ball. If the hand touches the ball after the light goes on, then the game is over. The motion of the hand off the ball doesn't matter as long as the ball is not touched.

MnvrChvy
02-09-2013, 11:25 AM
I'm not mad about this call. To me, it came down to what they called at the time of the play because the replays were not 100% convincing. In this kind of situation, I think it's better for the refs to assume the play was good and then to challenge that ruling. Benefit of the doubt should go to the offense.

Give them credit, they made tough plays at the end while the Pacers just had a couple slip ups. It was a really fun game to watch, and though I'm bummed about not getting the W, I was thoroughly entertained. I wish I could have been at the Fieldhouse. Frankly, if we had to lose one of these games, I'm glad it was the Toronto game.

Dgreenwell3
02-09-2013, 11:40 AM
Butt post sorry

Hicks
02-09-2013, 11:44 AM
The ball is out of his hand in the first two photos. It's close, but you can clearly see the white backboard padding between his fingers, and that would be impossible with the ball still in the pad of his hand. The best angle would have been from the Pacers bench but the top pic is also sufficient.

Yep. The first two photos are the angle I saw on a 650" screen in front of me at the Fieldhouse (I sit almost center court, row 1 in balcony). It was barely, and I mean BARELY, out of his hand. The best argument left is that maybe it was touching his thumb, but considering how one shoots a basketball, I find that unlikely (typically your thumb is as far back as any other part of the hand, if not even a little further back than the fingers). If I want to be super devil's advocate in favor of the Pacers, I would say that it's too close to overturn the ruling (which would mean there's some wiggle room to the interpretation of the replay), but I think they ultimately got it right.

I don't like it, but that's what I see.

Sandman21
02-09-2013, 12:12 PM
I cant tell with the shot, but I turned this game on with 5 minutes to go and saw at 3 atrocious calls go against the Pacers and about 2 no calls that should have been called. I was furious. I think they took David West out of the game mentally. I think that's why he made such a boneheaded pass at the end there.

Two words: Bennett. Salvatore.

PacersHomer
02-09-2013, 12:14 PM
He got it off.

bunt
02-09-2013, 01:18 PM
That's about as close as a call as you could get. So it all comes down to what was ruled on the court; if they had initially ruled no basket, I'm certain it would've stood as called as well.

The NBA won't be issuing any apology because one isn't necessary.

bunt
02-09-2013, 01:28 PM
Unfortunately, the referees made the cowardly decision that the call was just TOO close, and "aw heck, just let them play 5 more minutes." Some people agree that perhaps that was the "right" way to officiate in that situation. I disagree completely. The NBA rulebook says that if time expires and a player has not fully released the ball at that precise moment, the shot is disallowed. In this situation, NOT enforcing that rule directly lead to the Pacers not instantly claiming a win, and instead the events of overtime took place and we lost.

Had that rule been enforced by the officials last night, things would have ended OFFICIALLY the way that they should have.

Pacers 90
Raptors 88

The rulebook also says "Clear and conclusive visual evidence needed to overturn original call by officials."

The officials don't have the time or ability to freeze frame the shot from 4 different angles. And even if they did, you still have to squint your eyes to see what you want to see.

beast23
02-09-2013, 01:35 PM
I am in the camp that the ball was released from Johnson's hand by the time the backboard light came on.

But, if we can honestly sit here and look at these photos and see different things, that just tells you how close the call was to begin with. And as such, once the call was made on the floor, can everyone agree that without an additional review being conclusive one way or the other (as evidenced by our differing opinions), it is not likely at all that the officials were going to overrule the original call?

It would have been great if the call were overturned. But I honestly cannot argue it one way or the other. The real shame in this happening is that it was totally avoidable had we simply used our smarts and taken better care of the basketball. So, any way you choose to look at it, the onus is on us.

count55
02-09-2013, 01:39 PM
Sitting on opposite baseline press row, we all thought it was good in real time. Then, when they showed the baseline angle on the big board directly above us, you could see Amir had his left hand off the ball (to the side, which why it looks like it is touching it from the side angle) and that he had released the ball with his right. It was an odd motion...somewhere between a tip and a shot...because during slo-mo replay, it looked like it would be no way he wouldn't be touching it, but then he wasn't, and then the red lights came on.

The shot was out of his hand in time, and the call was right, both in real time and on the replay.

Miller_time04
02-09-2013, 01:52 PM
Yeah I was at the game, it really looked good. I said it was good before seeing any replays and then stood behind that thought when I did see replays.

FlavaDave
02-09-2013, 02:02 PM
It was crystal clear at the BiLF that the shot was good. The person who robbed the Pacers of a victory was David West. I love West and he had a great overall game, but that was an epic mistake with a timeout left.

I appreciate and applaud your efforts, however.

rexnom
02-09-2013, 02:13 PM
I just don't see it. Sorry, man. Tough call that was called correctly.

TMJ31
02-09-2013, 03:29 PM
Serious question - is the rule that the shooting motion portion of the hand must have released or is it that no portion of the hand may be touching? I ask because it is almost always stated in terms of whether or not the ball was released, and this analysis seems to turn on a couple of fingers still touching after the motion was completed but the light had not come on - and that last is important, it is the light and not the clock digits that matters.


The rule, and my position when showing these photos, was that once the clock reaches 0.0 and the red lights illuminate, if even ONE teeny-tiny portion of a finger, hand, thumb, whatever is touching the ball for any reason the game is OVER and the shot is disallowed. It's not like in football where you can finish the final play if time expires (Not insinuating you thought that, but it's just an example)


I'm not mad about this call. To me, it came down to what they called at the time of the play because the replays were not 100% convincing. In this kind of situation, I think it's better for the refs to assume the play was good and then to challenge that ruling. Benefit of the doubt should go to the offense.


I can totally respect your opinion here, but I completely disagree. Why? Because in this day and age we DO have replay available. If a shot is honestly THIS close, then yes, the refs should be looking at it from 4 different angles for as long as it takes to make the correct call. Which they did not do last night. As a result, the Pacers did not immediately get a "W" and instead we had to deal with an overtime, and it just wasn't our night. But all that would have been avoided had they not given them the "benefit of the doubt." That is why I was so upset about this.

TMJ31
02-09-2013, 03:41 PM
Well, I appreciate everyone reading and taking the time to comment on this thread, whether you agree or disagree.

I for one will be going to my grave with this game 90-88 in favor of the Blue and Gold. I simply cannot look at this pictures, especially the 3rd angle, and feel any other way.

It was somewhat cathartic for me taking the time last night to write this and get all the screenshots. At least I had the chance to vent, which for a fan who had to endure the Packers Vs Seahawks debacle, as well as several bad endings to Pacers games this year, was most needed!

For all of you who were at BLF, I respect and appreciate your input. I have no doubt that seeing the shot on the new scoreboard would indeed be helpful. But I don't need that board to be able to see something right in front of my eyes, with all due respect. Although the screenshots I took of this shot were fairly low resolution, that was out of pure lack of availability of anything higher on my computer. While watching the actual game I was seeing it all play out in 1080P on a large plasma television from a couple feet away. It was clear as crystal. I felt then, just as I feel now. Pacers 90 Raptors 88.

But again, this thread was meant to be a place to vent about our continued 'bad luck' with end game officiating. It is what it is, I suppose. We'll hopefully learn from this game and be a stronger team for it. I can assure you, David West and some of the other players who made bad decisions down the stretch will not be doing that again any time soon after this one.

And at the end of the day, maybe that's what we needed?

boombaby1987
02-09-2013, 04:34 PM
I would like to see a reply of Toronto's steal of David west's inbounds pass. From the one or two times I've seen it in real time it looked like it was very very close to being a back court violation on Toronto.

Don't 100% quote me on this but I am pretty damn sure that if your momentum is carrying you into the backcourt it is not over and back.

boombaby1987
02-09-2013, 04:37 PM
Also, thank you TMJ for actually doing this like I asked you to. Most people wouldn't follow through on that kind of thing because it is time consuming.

TMJ31
02-09-2013, 05:09 PM
Also, thank you TMJ for actually doing this like I asked you to. Most people wouldn't follow through on that kind of thing because it is time consuming.

You're welcome.

Like I said earlier, it was a cathartic for me. I've been so frustrated by the frequency of these occurrences this year in sports. Felt good to express that.

Sandman21
02-09-2013, 05:26 PM
For the record, the HS game I was broadcasting today had a somewhat similar situation. Kid CLEARLY released the ball in time (it was incredibly obvious), refs waved it off, head coach got T'ed up arguing the clearly blown call, and all I was thinking was "Man I wish we had these refs last night..." LOL

SycamoreKen
02-09-2013, 05:40 PM
Don't 100% quote me on this but I am pretty damn sure that if your momentum is carrying you into the backcourt it is not over and back.

Why would your momentum have anything to do with it not being over and back?

Shade
02-09-2013, 07:26 PM
I think the refs made the right call. It was so close that you just can't end the game pn a call like that.

Bball
02-09-2013, 07:49 PM
Why would your momentum have anything to do with it not being over and back?

I would think it would be where they determined possession to occur... So in that case momentum might matter because it would be in the act of securing possession.

Eddie Gill
02-09-2013, 08:35 PM
It was crystal clear at the BiLF that the shot was good. The person who robbed the Pacers of a victory was David West. I love West and he had a great overall game, but that was an epic mistake with a timeout left.

I appreciate and applaud your efforts, however.


West's fingerprints are all over this loss. For as great as he was, that inbounds pass, as well as another horrible turnover in OT are what I think about with this game. That said, I think he was also victim of the most egregious call of the night when he got called for that reach-in late in the game, negating a steal & easy PG layup.

Phree Refill
02-09-2013, 08:57 PM
I would think it would be where they determined possession to occur... So in that case momentum might matter because it would be in the act of securing possession.

After watching the steal again, Rudy Gay catches the ball on their side of the court and appears to land with one foot on their side and then brings his other foot down in the back court. He quickly flicks the ball to Amir Johnson as if he is trying to avoid the back court violation as he's landing. Since he doesn't ever take a dribble i don't now where you would consider his possssion of the ball to occur. Additionally, since it was an inbounds pass it may "turn off" the back court violation possibility.