Last Saturday night the Melbourne Tigers dropped a heartbreaker to the Cairns Taipans, 79-77, in overtime.

Tigers' guard Ayinde Ubaka had a potential game-winning three-pointer waived off after the referees used video replay to determine that Ubaka had released the shot late.

But was it?

Video replay clearly shows that the lights are on (which leads us to believe the buzzer had sounded), signalling the end of the game, before Ubaka released the ball.

But if you go through the next few frames of the video, you will see there is still time on the scoreboard and Ubaka has released the ball with 0.2 seconds on the clock.

The lights on the scoreboard were not indicating the end of the game, but were in fact indicating that the shot-clock had expired.

The Tigers had gained possession of the ball with 24.8 seconds remaining.

Daniel Dillon had attempted a shot prior to Ubaka, but Dillon's shot did not hit the ring, so the shot clock was not reset.

The Tigers regained the ball, after Dillon's missed shot, from underneath the basket.

The inbounds pass found Ubaka, who weaved through the defence and launched the shot from near the top of the three-point arc.

Ubaka's shot went straight through the net, sending the crowd into disbelief, and nobody knew whether it was going to count or not.

Now on Ubaka's shot, one referee signals that the shot is a ‘three-point attempt', while another referee signals that Ubaka has a toe on the line and that it's a ‘two-point attempt'.

Not one of the three referees whistle the Tigers for a shot-clock violation.

So when the referees went to the video replay, under the FIBA rules that the NBL have adopted, they can only make a call on the shot in question and not on anything else, be it a foul off the ball, for example, or in this case a ‘shot clock violation'.

The rule says:

Protest Procedure -

C.4 Videos, films, pictures or any equipment, visual, electronic, digital, or otherwise, may be used only to:

Decide if a last shot for a field goal at the end of each period or each extra period was released during playing time and/or whether that shot for a field goal counts for two (2) or three (3) points.

So if you take the ‘shot clock violation' out, because the referees can't change that non-call, the next step needs to be to determine if Ubaka released the ball before the clock read 0.0. Which he did.

The Tigers should've been called for a ‘shot clock violation‘, but they weren't, so Ubaka's shot should count, even if it is on a technicality.

To recap -

- The Tigers got possession with 24.8 seconds remaining.

- They should've been called for a shot clock violation with 0.8 seconds remaining, but weren't.

- Ubaka releases the ball with 0.2 seconds on the clock and makes the shot.

- Using video replay, the referees don't count Ubaka's shot because the lights are on around the scoreboard.

- The lights around the scoreboard are indicating that the shot-clock has expired, not the game clock.

- Under the NBL rules, a referee can only use video replay to determine whether the shot comes before or after the buzzer. Not for shot-clock violations.

So because no referee called the Tigers for a shot-clock violation, which would've been the correct call, Ubaka's shot should count because it beat the buzzer and the referees can't change that.

Video replay should've been used to determine if it was a ‘three-pointer' or a ‘two-pointer'. And if that was inconclusive, the referee closest to the ball would probably have his call stand, which was a ‘three-pointer'.

If Ubaka's shot had have counted, the Tigers would have been victorious, 80-79, providing they awarded him with three points for the basket.

It is a technicality, but under the rules that govern the game, Ubaka's shot should have been counted.

The Melbourne Tigers have missed their window to appeal, so the chance anything happens to alter the result would appear to be very slim.

Speaking to ABC.net.au earlier this week about the use of video replay during the game, NBL General Manager Chuck Harmison said, "It's great because it allows the referees and officials to get another look at the play and 99.99 per cent of the time they're going to get it absolutely right."

So we can only presume this case in point was the 0.01 per cent that they will get wrong. Even if it is on a technicality.