Did that buzzer-beater really beat the buzzer?

With a midseason change made by the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committees via a January 24 conference call, officials previously prohibited from using video replay in such cases are now required to use it under well-defined circumstances, starting January 28.

Before the change, Rule 2-5 was the roadblock. It said that officials "may not use replay equipment for judgment calls such as ... release of the ball before the sounding of the horn." The rationale for the rule at the time it was made, 1990-91, was that replay equipment, while available at some games, was not as prominent and advanced, and the game was not ready to allow such consultation.

A series of recent highly publicized buzzer-beater games, including Texas Tech University's 88-86 win over Texas A&M University, College Station, January 15, and the University of Miami's (Florida) 67-66 win over Villanova University two days later, helped influence the change.

According to the new rule, "at the end of the second half or at the end of any overtime period, the officials shall use replay equipment or television monitoring, if available, that is located on a designated court-side table (i.e., within approximately three to 12 feet of the playing court) to ascertain whether a try for field goal that will determine the outcome of a game (win, lose, tie), and is attempted at or near the expiration of the game clock, was released before the sounding of the period-ending horn."

By the mechanics approved by the committees, after the officials' initial decision on the court to allow or disallow such a try for field goal, officials shall use such court-side equipment to determine whether the ball was released before or after the game-ending horn sounded. When the horn is indiscernible, the officials shall use the red light located on the backboard support (if available), as a determining factor. Should the red light on the backboard support not be available, the game clock, only if it shows a tenth-second display, shall be used to reach a decision. If none of those is conclusive, the officials' original on-court decision stands.

The procedure may make it unnecessary for the officials to consult the official timer, which was required previously by the rules book under such circumstances. For games in which no such equipment is present, the procedure remains the same.

Getting it right

"Obviously, there is no call in the game that is more important, and it's the one call that's remembered longer than any other," said Reggie Minton, chair of the men's committee and coach of the U.S. Air Force Academy's men's team. "If we have the technology available to help us, we want to make sure we use it to get the call right. I don't know of any official who has ever made one of these calls who didn't feel as bad as the players and coaches (if it turned out to be wrong)."

Kate Pohlig, interim chair of the NCAA Women's Basketball Rules Committee and associate director of athletics at the University of Delaware, agreed.

"If it is clear on the television monitor, we want to allow our officials the flexibility to change the call if they can determine their initial call was incorrect," Pohlig said.

Hank Nichols, men's NCAA national officiating coordinator, said he thought officials would be happy with the change.

"I believe that the officials will welcome the opportunity to have the technical support to aid them in trying to arrive at the correct call," Nichols said.

Minton said the change was made in midseason via conference call rather than in the committees' standard process of voting for a change during the annual rules committee meeting because of the importance of the issue.

"Everyone who follows basketball has seen the replays of some of these games where the video of some calls seems to run contrary to what was called on the floor," he said. "Unfortunately, the hundreds of calls that are correct don't get that kind of play. This drew attention to a problem that existed and begged the question: If we have the technology, why not use it?

"There could be a half-dozen more games this year that come down to a last-second shot and some of those games could have far-ranging implications on who our champions are."

Precedent for video

The most recent time that a rule was changed in midseason was in 1990-91, when a rule further defining fighting and stiffening the penalty for doing so was added, as directed of all applicable sports for which the NCAA made playing rules by the then-NCAA Executive Committee.

Minton explained further that the change does not go radically astray from the current rules because those rules already permit use of video in some circumstances. Those rules limited such use to determining if a fight occurred, ascertaining those individuals who participated in a fight, and rectifying three correctable errors, including "erroneously counting or canceling a score," which further supported the committees' rational in adopting the new rule.

The other correctable errors that may be remedied by use of video are permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw and attempting a free throw at the wrong basket. The committees rationalized that if video could be used for review of those relatively insignificant plays, it ought to be incorporated to adjudicate the most important call in a game.

While the midseason change may eventually open the way for more video involvement in the game, Minton said that the committees purposely kept the scope of this change narrow because of the midseason time frame and will move more slowly in considering any further use of video, possibly discussing it during the annual meetings, which are scheduled for May 1-4.

"We can't stop the game and examine every call," he said. "There still needs to be a human element to the game. (Stopping to examine a last-second shot call on video) will not disjoint the game the way doing so for some other calls might."

Although the officials will be required to examine court-side video or television replay under the circumstances listed above, Minton said the committee felt it was important to emphasize that an on-court call allowing or disallowing a basket be made, just as before the change.

"(Requiring) them to do that makes it cleaner," he said. "There's no big discussion or protest. They just do it as a mechanic. If they rule that the video isn't conclusive, the original call stands."

Minton emphasized that the committee is not questioning the officials' ability but wants to help them.

"We trust their judgment for 40 minutes or more and we're not going to stop trusting it," he said. "This just makes their job a little easier."