So CCH was up 14 at half, correct?

 

What did Cooper do to change the flow of the game?

The biggest factor wasn't that CCH let up, but was more of Spencer Holand played the entire 2nd half and was the main cog in the scoring machine the 2nd half. He had half the points himself in the 2nd half. He only played about 1 min of the 1st half because he got 2 quick fouls called on him so he sat the entire first half with 0 points.

 

That was the biggest difference I. The flow along with much better defense in the 2nd half.

Hopefully this will be the last post I have on the three pointer but for all the ones saying it didn't go in, did you read what Skinner posted? He talked to the Cooper coach today who watched the play on video and he says it went in went in. Not sure why it's a debate when the coach who would be hurt by the missed call says he watched it on video and is convinced it went in.

I think many such as VOR don't understand is the fact no one is saying or claiming on here it is a conspiracy or anything like that. Sully says it went In From his point of view 50 feet away while CCH fans who were much closer said it didn't go in, yet we have a video shown on a 2 inch screen where the ball isn't even visible once it reaches the net/rim has those who weren't even there calling eyewitnesses basically stupid or ignorant, yet even those who were there on differing sides are able to be more neutral than those that weren't there speaks volumes to me.

 

If Sully said he didn't think it went in would matter to those that think it did go in? No, I don't think it would change one persons opinion who was there and witnessed it first hand. As was already said on here, would love to see the video in an actual monitor where you can actually see the ball period instead on a 2 inch screen where the video clearly doesn't show proof one way or the other. Either way the only proof that could ever be shown would be a picture from the side where you can see the ball either inside the cylinder or under the rim. Only one angle from where the shot was made from can show that proof and that is a side shot even with the basket which just so happens to be the same perspective those who saw it go under the rim were watching from.

 

You really had to be there to understand the angle. VOR clearly wasn't so his opinion on the entire thing means absolutely squat to me.

 

 

NKU, do you happen to remember a baseball game last year at Dixie against CCH where a homerun was called even though some claimed it was a foul ball? Do you remember what was said in that debate and the differing opinions depended on where people were sitting due to the angle? This is a very similar thing.

Edited February 12, 201412 yr by Hellbird

HB ... I do not have a vendetta against you. I enjoy your posts and love your passion. But if I think you are wrong about something, I say it. If that looks like a vendetta, let me make it clear to you it is not. With that, sorry for interrupting the discussion and I will move on.

The other was when the Crazies ragged on the Cooper band for leaving the game after half time and the Cooper kids ragged that you could have them, only to have the Crazies cheer we don't want them and the Cooper kids cheered, neither do we. I about laughed till I had tears coming out of my eyes. One of the funniest moments I have seen at a HS basketball game between two student bodies that were having a ball cheering on their classmates, friends and team!

 

 

Oh, if only it were that "wholesome".....Four BCHS girls showed up in support of CCH in "defiance" of all the guys from Ryle and BCHS who were supposed to show up against CCH. CCH starting chanting "Your girls want us!!" Then you got the rest right, Cooper said "You can have them" and CCH answered with "We don't want them" etc......The girls made a hasty departure at that point.

HB ... I do not have a vendetta against you. I enjoy your posts and love your passion. But if I think you are wrong about something, I say it. If that looks like a vendetta, let me make it clear to you it is not. With that, sorry for interrupting the discussion and I will move on.

It's all good.

 

As I said, I was not the only one with the same view and angle last night. Was something that the video did not show clearly either way which is why I don't know if we will ever see a still photo blown up so we can clearly see the ball above the rim. That is our contention, the ball was never above and over the rim. If there is a pic showing the ball is then that would help convince us. That's all.

I

hate this debate because it is taking away from one incredible game

Okay. Watched the video, and it appears to have went in, and I definitely swing more towards Copper than CC. Not sure it has been mentioned, but that was a pass, and not a 3 pt shot attempt, therefore it should have only counted for 2 pts. Unless rules have changed, a 3pt goal must come from a 3pt shot attempt.

At the 9 second mark the ball is right above the rim. If you can slow it down enough and enlarge it, you can see the ball.

 

Zapruder would be proud.

Okay. Watched the video, and it appears to have went in, and I definitely swing more towards Copper than CC. Not sure it has been mentioned, but that was a pass, and not a 3 pt shot attempt, therefore it should have only counted for 2 pts. Unless rules have changed, a 3pt goal must come from a 3pt shot attempt.

 

"A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19ft/9in arc counts three points."

Okay. Watched the video, and it appears to have went in, and I definitely swing more towards Copper than CC. Not sure it has been mentioned, but that was a pass, and not a 3 pt shot attempt, therefore it should have only counted for 2 pts. Unless rules have changed, a 3pt goal must come from a 3pt shot attempt.

 

I am not a rules expert but I have never heard of this…can anyone validate

Okay. Watched the video, and it appears to have went in, and I definitely swing more towards Copper than CC. Not sure it has been mentioned, but that was a pass, and not a 3 pt shot attempt, therefore it should have only counted for 2 pts. Unless rules have changed, a 3pt goal must come from a 3pt shot attempt.

 

Wow. If that is true (calling Clyde) then it's a tie game.

Rule 5 - Section 2 Scoring - Article 1. Please see last post and reference "thrown".

Okay. Watched the video, and it appears to have went in, and I definitely swing more towards Copper than CC. Not sure it has been mentioned, but that was a pass, and not a 3 pt shot attempt, therefore it should have only counted for 2 pts. Unless rules have changed, a 3pt goal must come from a 3pt shot attempt.

 

It is a 3 pointer

"A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19ft/9in arc counts three points."

 

That sounds correct, so it should count as 3

That sounds correct, so it should count as 3

 

So you finally admit it went in, nice.

So you finally admit it went in, nice.

 

Hahaha, nope, not until I see inconclusive evidence.

I was saying if they were going to count it then it should be 3 not 2