Tough way for SMU to lose
- Thread starter Relayer
- Start date
It Wasn't Going In - But It Was (Unfortunately) Going To Hit The Rim!
Unfortunately it was the right call.
SMU was one of my eight picks in my eight-man pool.....thought they were gonna win it today.
I have always HATED UCLA.
Unfortunately it was the right call.
SMU was one of my eight picks in my eight-man pool.....thought they were gonna win it today.
I have always HATED UCLA.
These announcers are morons and have no grasp on the rules
In the cylinder doesn't mean going through the hoop (as they think), it means a vertical plane that goes infinitely high from the rim upwards. If any piece of the ball is in that vertical plane and touched, it is goaltending. Just a ridiculously dumb play by the defender to touch that ball.
In the cylinder doesn't mean going through the hoop (as they think), it means a vertical plane that goes infinitely high from the rim upwards. If any piece of the ball is in that vertical plane and touched, it is goaltending. Just a ridiculously dumb play by the defender to touch that ball.
Not 100% at all. It might have hit rim, would have been a good no call....
Ball had no chance to go in.
Ball had no chance to go in.
If it hits the rim, it has a chance to go in. Horrible play by the defender
correct call by the official. Do I think that ball is going in? No way. But it's going to hit the rim and that gives it a chance to go in and it must be called by the official.
correct call by the official. Do I think that ball is going in? No way. But it's going to hit the rim and that gives it a chance to go in and it must be called by the official.
Please show the angle that shows it was definitely going to hit the rim...
I certainly have not seen it. The angle from above the rim is FAR from conclusive. I have no dog in this hunt, but If that would have been a no call you would not be hearing a single thing about the play.
I certainly have not seen it. The angle from above the rim is FAR from conclusive. I have no dog in this hunt, but If that would have been a no call you would not be hearing a single thing about the play.
It's above the cylinder on it's way down, how is is possible for it
not to hit the rim? Albeit far to the right, but it's going to hit the rim. The vertical angle clearly shows this. I don't have a dog in this one either, but as an official, you make that call every time. Nobody here is to blame but the defender. He made the bonehead play on a ball that apparently everyone knows wasn't going to go in anyway. Apparently high school rules are different from NCAA, but that is just a horrible play that he'll have to live with.
not to hit the rim? Albeit far to the right, but it's going to hit the rim. The vertical angle clearly shows this. I don't have a dog in this one either, but as an official, you make that call every time. Nobody here is to blame but the defender. He made the bonehead play on a ball that apparently everyone knows wasn't going to go in anyway. Apparently high school rules are different from NCAA, but that is just a horrible play that he'll have to live with.
LOL @ Yahoo's write up of the play...
"CBS play-by-play announcer Verne Lundquist was skeptical of the
goaltending call as it was made, and the postgame studio analysts spent
at least 10 minutes debating whether the ball made contact with the rim,
which would have been necessary for the goaltending call."
The (woman) writer claims you can block any shot, in the cylinder or not, on the way up or down, as long as it doesn't hit the rim first. Fantastic.
"CBS play-by-play announcer Verne Lundquist was skeptical of the
goaltending call as it was made, and the postgame studio analysts spent
at least 10 minutes debating whether the ball made contact with the rim,
which would have been necessary for the goaltending call."
The (woman) writer claims you can block any shot, in the cylinder or not, on the way up or down, as long as it doesn't hit the rim first. Fantastic.
Totally disagree. A lot of balls above the cylinder on the way down...
don't hit the rim. Think about it.
There is no angle I have seen yet that shows it was definitely going to hit rim. It was a total judgement call and IMO the right judgement was no call in that situation. At best the ball would have skimmed outside of the rim. That was an ugly forced shot that had no chance to go in. If there's no call, there's no controversy here at all.
don't hit the rim. Think about it.
There is no angle I have seen yet that shows it was definitely going to hit rim. It was a total judgement call and IMO the right judgement was no call in that situation. At best the ball would have skimmed outside of the rim. That was an ugly forced shot that had no chance to go in. If there's no call, there's no controversy here at all.
A lot of balls above the cylinder on the way down don't hit the rim?
Define a lot. That would be an airball going over the rim and hitting nothing or hitting the backboard on the other side after airballing over the rim. Maybe in elementary school leagues, but I haven't seen a shot like that in any of the games today. The right judgment was for the kid not to block a ball in the cylinder. I don't know what you guys are seeing. You have dvr? You can pause the vertical angle from above the hoop and the ball is clearly above the cylinder. You guys moonlight as BIG football refs?
PS. Player said after the game it was all his fault for goaltending that shot. And Kevin Durant and other basketball guys are tweeting that it was obviously a goaltend.
Everyone on CBS says it was absolutely the correct call (basketball guys: Kenny Smith, Barkley), everyone on Court TV says it's wrong (media guys who say CONTROVERSIAL CALL every time they open their mouth)
This post was edited on 3/19 7:04 PM by dwiz
Define a lot. That would be an airball going over the rim and hitting nothing or hitting the backboard on the other side after airballing over the rim. Maybe in elementary school leagues, but I haven't seen a shot like that in any of the games today. The right judgment was for the kid not to block a ball in the cylinder. I don't know what you guys are seeing. You have dvr? You can pause the vertical angle from above the hoop and the ball is clearly above the cylinder. You guys moonlight as BIG football refs?
PS. Player said after the game it was all his fault for goaltending that shot. And Kevin Durant and other basketball guys are tweeting that it was obviously a goaltend.
Everyone on CBS says it was absolutely the correct call (basketball guys: Kenny Smith, Barkley), everyone on Court TV says it's wrong (media guys who say CONTROVERSIAL CALL every time they open their mouth)
This post was edited on 3/19 7:04 PM by dwiz
Re: A lot of balls above the cylinder on the way down don't hit the rim?
This is probably Topic A on every sports call in show in the country today. The leading Bay Area sports call in show featured a segment where they recited, verbatim, the NCAA rule on goaltending, and one of the requirements for a goaltending call is that the shot had to have had a chance of going in. I'm paraphrasing slightly, but the point is that it is not enough that the ball might hit the front of the rim (which is all this particular shot ever had a chance of doing). It has to have a chance of going in. This shot had zero chance of going in, unless the laws of physics could somehow be suspended. Therefore, It was clearly not goaltending.
Another thing that was discussed extensively is that the call was made by the wrong ref, and they ref who was in the best position to make the call made no call, but did not (inexplicably) immediately confab with the ref who did make the call and advise/instruct him to reverse it. That kind of thing happens in the NBA quite frequently.
Edit: No intent to be snarky with this post. It just appeared to me, based on the reading of the NCAA goaltending rule I heard, that more than a couple of posters were operating on the assumption that the rule only requires that the ball be destined to hit the rim in order for there to be a legit goaltending call. If the account of the rule I heard over the radio is accurate, that is simply not the case
This post was edited on 3/19 8:10 PM by LafayetteBear
This is probably Topic A on every sports call in show in the country today. The leading Bay Area sports call in show featured a segment where they recited, verbatim, the NCAA rule on goaltending, and one of the requirements for a goaltending call is that the shot had to have had a chance of going in. I'm paraphrasing slightly, but the point is that it is not enough that the ball might hit the front of the rim (which is all this particular shot ever had a chance of doing). It has to have a chance of going in. This shot had zero chance of going in, unless the laws of physics could somehow be suspended. Therefore, It was clearly not goaltending.
Another thing that was discussed extensively is that the call was made by the wrong ref, and they ref who was in the best position to make the call made no call, but did not (inexplicably) immediately confab with the ref who did make the call and advise/instruct him to reverse it. That kind of thing happens in the NBA quite frequently.
Edit: No intent to be snarky with this post. It just appeared to me, based on the reading of the NCAA goaltending rule I heard, that more than a couple of posters were operating on the assumption that the rule only requires that the ball be destined to hit the rim in order for there to be a legit goaltending call. If the account of the rule I heard over the radio is accurate, that is simply not the case
This post was edited on 3/19 8:10 PM by LafayetteBear
If the head of officiating for the Ncaa (the guy on CBS) says the correct
Call was made, why is this even being discussed? It's not reviewable. You can't overturn it. You just going to make up a rule and do a possession arrow at the end of the game? Hilarious.
Call was made, why is this even being discussed? It's not reviewable. You can't overturn it. You just going to make up a rule and do a possession arrow at the end of the game? Hilarious.
here's a piece from the Washington Post
contains 2 separate angles of the shot, and a break down of the NCAA rules
the call may be debated on technicalities, but I think it was a legit call within the confines of the rules.
but SMU lost this game on more than that play. up 7 with 1:26 to go, and they couldn't hold on to the ball or the lead.
LINK
contains 2 separate angles of the shot, and a break down of the NCAA rules
the call may be debated on technicalities, but I think it was a legit call within the confines of the rules.
but SMU lost this game on more than that play. up 7 with 1:26 to go, and they couldn't hold on to the ball or the lead.
In that link, writer says
"As Bleacher Report pointed out, the referee who made the call was under
the basket and didn't have greatest view of the ball's trajectory."
The next line in the article has Bleacher Report's tweet stating "The official who made the goaltending call was 30 feet away from the play"
These idiots can't even write 2 sentences next to each other that don't contradict. It was the outside official that made the call, which is the correct mechanic. The trail or the C make that call, the lead (under the basket) isn't to make that call, and that's what happened here.
"As Bleacher Report pointed out, the referee who made the call was under
the basket and didn't have greatest view of the ball's trajectory."
The next line in the article has Bleacher Report's tweet stating "The official who made the goaltending call was 30 feet away from the play"
These idiots can't even write 2 sentences next to each other that don't contradict. It was the outside official that made the call, which is the correct mechanic. The trail or the C make that call, the lead (under the basket) isn't to make that call, and that's what happened here.
It's A Totally Different Rebound If The Ball Hits The Rim First!
Who knows who'd have gotten it.....
!
Who knows who'd have gotten it.....
Re: If the head of officiating for the Ncaa (the guy on CBS) says the correct
If the "head NCAA officiating guy on CBS" said that was the correct call, he was mistaken. Here is the NCAA qoaltending rule. Please note the language at the end, which I have bolded and italicized.
"Goaltending. (Rule 9-17.5). When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim on a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket."
Steve Alford's trey attempt was well short. It would either have been an airball or deflected back after barely touching the front of the rim. The ball had no possibility of entering the basket. The fact that it was still on its way down is completely irrelevent. No goaltending call should have been made. Moreover, the trailing ref should have called for a referee conference and reversed a bad, game deciding call. Had there been no goaltending call, play would have continued with SMU in possession and leading by two with thirteen seconds left. Game over, and the Ponies win.
Dwiz: That fact that an officiating call is not reviewable means that it cannot or should not be discussed or debated? LOL.
If the "head NCAA officiating guy on CBS" said that was the correct call, he was mistaken. Here is the NCAA qoaltending rule. Please note the language at the end, which I have bolded and italicized.
"Goaltending. (Rule 9-17.5). When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim on a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket."
Steve Alford's trey attempt was well short. It would either have been an airball or deflected back after barely touching the front of the rim. The ball had no possibility of entering the basket. The fact that it was still on its way down is completely irrelevent. No goaltending call should have been made. Moreover, the trailing ref should have called for a referee conference and reversed a bad, game deciding call. Had there been no goaltending call, play would have continued with SMU in possession and leading by two with thirteen seconds left. Game over, and the Ponies win.
Referees don't influence the outcome of the game, the better team clearly won.
Sincerely, every Ohio State fan.
Sincerely, every Ohio State fan.
Re: Then the defender shouldn't have touched the ball. 100% the
Without a doubt the right call. Goaltending is the defense touching the ball on the way down during a shot at the basket. The video shows this is clearly what happened.
Without a doubt the right call. Goaltending is the defense touching the ball on the way down during a shot at the basket. The video shows this is clearly what happened.
Re: If the head of officiating for the Ncaa (the guy on CBS) says the correct
The call was correct. The ref is not going to prejudge a ball that close to the basket. It has a possibility of going in. We have seen balls hit the front of the rim and climb up, over and in. We have seen balls go into the basket, roll around and come out. Who can prejudge those. Does the ref have to calculate the spin on the ball and the adhesion of the ball to the rim material to judge if is has a possibility of entering the basket?
If there is the slightest doubt, it has the possiblity. Notice the rule does NOT say "good" possibility.
You are overreacting to the bolded portion. It doesn't mean the ref has to judge if the ball would or could go in, it just means it has to be near the basket. What they are saying is that a ball that is wildy away from the rim is not goal tending. Like if the ball is above the rim and on a downward flight but is at mid court. THAT is not goal tending.
The call was correct. The ref is not going to prejudge a ball that close to the basket. It has a possibility of going in. We have seen balls hit the front of the rim and climb up, over and in. We have seen balls go into the basket, roll around and come out. Who can prejudge those. Does the ref have to calculate the spin on the ball and the adhesion of the ball to the rim material to judge if is has a possibility of entering the basket?
If there is the slightest doubt, it has the possiblity. Notice the rule does NOT say "good" possibility.
Re: If the head of officiating for the Ncaa (the guy on CBS) says the correct
We will have to agree to disagree. That ball had no possibility of going in. It looked like an airball in flight. If the rule was that the ball had to be "wildly away from the rim," then that is what the rule would say. I would note that your opinion is not shared by most commentators. Including the trailing ref, who had the best view and did not call goaltending.
Problem is you say commentators disagree, but the head official of the NCAA
The officials in the game, not to mention the entire panel on CBS (guys who played ball, don't just talk about it) agree that it was goaltending. Larry Brown and the player both say it was probably goaltending.
The officials in the game, not to mention the entire panel on CBS (guys who played ball, don't just talk about it) agree that it was goaltending. Larry Brown and the player both say it was probably goaltending.
Re: Problem is you say commentators disagree, but the head official of the NCAA
+1000. Totally agree. Recreate the force and trajectory of that shot with a machine 1,000,000 times and the shot does not go in once. To me, that is the definition of "no possibility of going in."
+1000. Totally agree. Recreate the force and trajectory of that shot with a machine 1,000,000 times and the shot does not go in once. To me, that is the definition of "no possibility of going in."
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State to welcome regional safety committed elsewhere to town this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
