Talk:Basketball at the 1972 Summer Olympics

Intercepted?

The notes say that the second inbounds pass was intercepted. I have never read that anywhere else. It is not mentioned in the ESPN article that is linked. Wouldn't that have made the clock a moot point?

Coach calling time out?

"USSR coach Vladimir Kondrashkin had attempted to call time out between Collins' free throws and it was awarded, although rules state that a coach cannot call a time out during free throws."

This statement needs to be referenced. I have read that the opposite was true. A coach could request a time out, and the game officials erred by not granting it before the Soviets inbounded the ball. In addition, while the clock was properly reset after the time out, the horn was not, thus necessitating a second reset (and thus a third opportunity) which led to the Soviets' winning basket at the horn. The head of FIBA at the time (R. William Jones), who ordered the clock reset in both cases, has insisted (in an article in Referee magazine many years ago) that, while Americans may not have liked the outcome, the Soviets would have had grounds to protest the game otherwise, thus his decision to correct the officials' errors at the time was justified and the outcome of the game was properly determined. (Given that, according to the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jones was a founder of FIBA in 1932, his knowledge of FIBA rules was probably all but impossible to dispute.) heard that The problem is that, as in the case of NCAA vs. high school vs. NBA basketball, there are many minor technical differences between FIBA and other rule codes with which fans (and players and coaches as well) may not be familiar. In addition, of course, FIBA rules themselves are changed periodically, so I don't know if the coach was within his rights to request a time out during a free-throw attempt (or between attempts, or after the last of a two-shot attempt). 4.243.227.32 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Jones may indeed have been an expert on FIBA rules, but neither his position at the time nor the fact that he was one of the founders of FIBA 40 years earlier makes that a certainty. And regardless of his knowledge of the rules he had no more authority than the guy sitting next to him to interfere with the game. The ref should have (politely) asked him to take a hike, and if he insisted in trying to interfere, called security and have him escorted off. Wschart (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Last three seconds

Over the internet, this discussion has arose many times on many forums. As far as I can tell, it's impossible nowadays to determine if the timeout request is legal or not unless we have an legal rule book from 1972 or 1971, because FIBA rules (minor issues of them) are changed every two years or even every year.

There are more documentaries than the ESPN one. I think there's one from HBO and, at least, a couple more from outside the USA. Every one having a different POV, and available over the ed2k net.

Actually, what the rule was then is well-known, so that's not the reason we can't say for sure if it's legal. Once the ball was handed to Collins for the second free throw, the play was live and you could not legally call a timeout after that. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any dispute on this point. The dispute arises from the Soviet claims that they had already called the timeout before that, and thus they were "due" for for that timeout to be granted between the first and second free throws, before the officials handed the ball to Collins for the second one. So what is unknowable is whether the Soviets were telling the truth about that, or whether they were making a false claim to game the system and get away with being granted a timeout later what was allowed for under the rules. Unfortunately, no one who wasn't sitting on the Soviet bench or at the scorer's table, where the timeout light would have gone off, can ever know for certain whether the Soviet claim was truthful. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Poland or Romania?

Someone who knows better than me should do something about this... Csabadapp (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Timing at the end?

The article as I found it was unclear about the timing and the events at the conclusion of the match. For example, was the final conclusion of the match signalled with a buzzer or with a horn? Was the first section of play (after the free throws) one second or three seconds? What was the duration of the second section of play: one second or three seconds? I've tried to clarify it, but I do not have access to a video of the match. Do you? Can you clarify further? Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into some of your other questions, but as to the second section of play, the clock was reset to three seconds - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqCXSSJHwU0&feature=related This video starts with the second chance, the one in question, and as you can see the ball is in play for more than one second before time runs out (the time starts as soon as the bounce-pass inbounds touches the recipient. I've yet to find a video that actually shows the clock, though, I'll look for an article that references it so this isn't original research by any definition. (though a video of the clock actually reading three seconds should be sufficient proof, right?) -hitheremynameisbob 129.171.233.77 (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That video proofs just the oposite. It is not a US telecast, I think it's the Russian one, which was different because the american tv (ABC?) had their own cameras and so, the images and post-production was a little different from the German one. The clock is shown at 50 seconds remaining which matchs the description of the horn being a signal to adress the referees that the clock wasn't ready instead of the horn buzzing at the end of the match. Also, befor the inbound pass, we can see the scorers table waving the referees in order to tell them that the clock wasn't ready yet. But as you said, this is original research until we found a reference Qeu 11:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qeu (talk • contribs)

I am assuming that under FIBA rules of the time, the minor officials at the table were allowed to grant a time out, otherwise the whole thing was totally wrong, since the on-court officials had no knowledge of any TO. So why is there no statement from the table people about whether and when the Soviets called a TO. And what can be seen from videos of the period following the calling of the foul and Collins first free throw? Is there and visual evidence of the coaches attempting to call a TO? Wschart (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the Soviet broadcast, but the video of the American broadcast offers no such answers there. Collins was injured when he was fouled, so the camera shot immediately focused in on him laying there on the floor and it stayed there while the trainers attended to him for a good 30 seconds. Then, even after he got up, the camera shot continued to stay directly on Collins, following him as he walked around trying to gather himself, and cutting away from him only briefly to show a close-up of the scoreboard for a couple of seconds. So during the period when the timeout was (or was not) called, the Soviet bench and coaching staff are not in the video at all. By the time the broadcast went back to a wide shot, where you could see the Soviet bench, Collins was already stepping to the line to shoot the free throws, so the critical time period in question had passed by that point. Mwelch (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Throwing Elbows

I just took out a very slanted and inaccurate description of the final shot. Videos of the moment are easy to retrieve, so if anyone feels like restoring the old description, I would ask that you view it first.

The ball came down, not at the foul line, but five feet from the basket. No elbow throwing is evident on Belov's part, and it would have been difficult since he never brought the ball below his chin. He certainly did not send two men sprawling. Joyce had over-committed himself running down the court. He tried to reach back, but there was no way. Forbes made an awkward hop and went down on his own. When Belov came down with the ball, Joyce was four feet out of bounds and Forbes was on his back.--Geometricks (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate accounts even in WP:RS sources

The available video makes clear that some of the things that get reported in newspaper and magazine articles that recount the game now decades later are not accurate, even though these sources would generally have reputations that hold up to WP:RS. For anyone wishing to make a future edit citing an article which asserts either that the Soviet coach came out on to the court during the first try, or that the Soviet inbounder stepped on the end line to start the second try (and again, unfortunately, there are plenty of such "reliable source" articles out there which make these erroneous statements as fact), contradictory video evidence is available on YouTube here and here.

One video shows pretty clearly that the Soviet coach stays on the sideline when he runs to the scorer's table during the first try. (I'll note, though, that from the standpoint of evaluating the validity of the American argument that a technical foul should have been called, this is probably a nitpick, since leaving the designated bench area during a live ball is a violation, regardless whether you step out into the actual playing area or not. But still, when recounting the events, the narrative should be accurate and not say that he went onto the court when he clearly did not.) The other video provides a clear view of the inbounder's feet and the end line for the second try and shows unequivocally that he did not step on it. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is SO TRUE! This is one of those Wikipedia articles in which the combined study and input of different users has revealed that "reliable sources" have regularly released biased and inaccurate information. The available videos reveal that the commonly-heard story about the Americans being "victims of cheating" is NOT evident. Wikipedia does not permit original research, but the evolution of this article will eventually bring about more accurate historical accounts of this infamous basketball game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.225.127 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is NOT that the Soviet coach stepped onto the court, as he did not. However he left the designated area in front of the bench and approached the scorers table during play. The video supports this...and at the time this game was played that was a technical foul that should have been called against the Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.93.67 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for review

I've created a website devoted to the final game events. Before updating the article in Wiki, I'm asking those who is interested, please, visit and review last3seconds.com. I could have made some mistakes, or I can be completely wrong. Iliasbay (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I found your site to be very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Particularly enlightening was your explanation of how Kondrashin illegally substituted Edeshko into the game. I wouldn't add it to this Wikipedia article because it appears to be original research on your part, but I have to hand it to you that it's mighty convincing original research!

One thing I did add to the article was the statement from the official scorekeeper that Righetto was definitely going to resume play with only one second on the clock before Jones overruled him. I found that in one of the contemporary articles you linked to from your site, so I added it here and cited that article.

This space is specifically for discussing this Wikipedia article, so with regard to other comments about your site that don't relate to this article, I'll leave that for you on your personal talk page. Mwelch (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Results of 2002 appeals?

The article states that the Soviet Union was awarded the win and that an appeal was placed in 2002 (or as a result of another ruling in 2002). At the top it shows the Soviet team as the gold winner and the US team as the Silver. However, in the "Final Standings" section it shows the United States as winning the gold with a record of 9-0 and the Soviet Union the silver with a record of 8-1. There is no explanation for this. Did the IOC rule ultimately in favor of the US or is this just an oversight?

The final standings section you mention was just the result of someone vandalizing the article. Mwelch (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Date the semifinals were played

The article states that the basketball semifinals were played on Sept. 6, 1972, and I still have a ticket that shows the date of Sept. 6, 1972. But, the Olympics were postponed one day because of the killings, which happened on Sept. 5, 1972, so, that means the semifinal basketball games were actually played on Sept. 7, 1972, not Sept. 6, 1972. I was there, and this is how I remember it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionjonathan (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." FIBA has it as September 6. If you can identify reliable sources that write otherwise, we can discuss which ones are accurate.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Bionjonathan is correct about what happened, though without question Bagumba is correct about policy. It should be easy enough to retrieve newspaper accounts of the U.S. semi-final game and see on what date those accounts indicate the game was played. I'd go with that over what FIBA has (since the FIBA thing could easily have been compiled using the original schedule), especially if there is explicit mention in the newspaper of the game having been postponed a day from the 6th to the 7th. I'll have a look a little later on. Mwelch (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the time to get back to this and newspaper accounts from the time do confirm that Bionjonathan's memory is accurate. The semi-final games were originally schedule for the 6th, but in the aftermath of the tragedy were postponed until and ultimately played on the 7th. I've changed the dates in the article accordingly. Mwelch (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)