I think his point is that even if it does graze the rim, that doesn't make it goaltending. For it to be goaltending it has to have a chance to go in which this did not. The only argument for giving three points is that this was basket interference and the ball was in the cylinder, but can it really be in the cylinder if it is only going to graze the outside of the rim?
Come on SMU!!
- Thread starter Cerro Gordo Hawk
- Start date
And as long as it looks like the ball is going to touch the rim, it doesn't matter if it looks like the shot would go in or not after touching the rim. They look at a ball touching the rim as having a chance of going in. That's how the Mike Perriera-type person on TNT explained it during halftime of the Ohio State game. One of those things where a call is made based on how a rule is written.
NCAA head of officiating was on tv and said that the ball has to have a chance to go in for it to be goaltending. Which according to him, it did. There is no way that ball had a chance to go in.
I understand what your saying. I'll come back to my previous question. Any shot that looks like it will just graze the rim can be poke away before it hits the rim?
OK, fair enough. I really don't see it that way, and to me it seems blatantly obvious. Maybe I am wrong. I don't have a dog in the fight either.....I can't stand SA, so maybe on some subconscious level that is not allowing me to see this clearly. But wow, either way what a $hitty way to lose a game.
Iffy call, but SMU had 10 seconds to go to the other end of the court and get a good look to win the game. They had 2 shots, a 30' jumper and a second 3-pointer. You have to do better than that with 10 seconds to play.
Besides, if SMU doesn't get that verbal from the point guard that Kentucky was recruting hard, Tyler Ulis likely ends up at Iowa. I don't feel too bad for SMU.
Besides, if SMU doesn't get that verbal from the point guard that Kentucky was recruting hard, Tyler Ulis likely ends up at Iowa. I don't feel too bad for SMU.
Folks, come on ... let's use our heads.
Yes, what the rule states is the ball must have a chance of going in. But do you honestly think referees would attempt to make a determination of a ball that - in their view - is going to hit the rim if it is further going to take any number of bounces and then go in? No.
If the ball is viewed as going to hit the rim it has met the minimum standard of having a chance to go in.
Yes, what the rule states is the ball must have a chance of going in. But do you honestly think referees would attempt to make a determination of a ball that - in their view - is going to hit the rim if it is further going to take any number of bounces and then go in? No.
If the ball is viewed as going to hit the rim it has met the minimum standard of having a chance to go in.
The non call against Penn st is similar in that it looked like it was going to at least touch the rim. But, it did not look like it was going in either. They should have called that as well IMO.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes, I honestly think if the call was reviewable they would have changed the call. There is zero chance of that ball going in. Even if it does hit the rim it wouldn't even touch the backboard, it would bounce right. The call never should have been made, it was made by the official with the worst angle. The official underneath the hoop didn't call it goaltending, it was the guy on the right side of the court behind the 3 pt line. There is no way that official could tell if it had a chance of going in, he just saw that part of the ball was above the rim and assumed it had a chance of going in.
This post was edited on 3/19 5:57 PM by hawkeyefanatic84
The studio guys (Barkley, Smith, etc.) tried using the "it wouldn't haven't hit the backboard" argument with the director of officials, but that guy says that wouldn't have mattered. He said they look at a ball hitting the rim as having the possibility of going in, regardless what it appears the ball is going to do after hitting the rim.
The bottom of the ball has a small diameter then the center of the ball. There is no conclusive view that shows that ball would have NOT hit the rim on the way down. That gif only shows the bottom 1/4 of the ball below the rim, we are talking cm's here and the middle of the ball very well could've "skimmed" the rim. Rules are rules, goaltending.
Doesn't look like a goaltend to me from the angle above the hoop as well.
This post was edited on 3/19 6:22 PM by hawkeyefanatic84
Sorry still don't see anything different. I see white and gold you see black and blue. They called goal tend in real time and you can't change the call. IMO ball looks like it could have hit the rim.Originally posted by hawkeyefanatic84:
Doesn't look like a goaltend to me from the angle above the hoop as well.
This post was edited on 3/19 6:22 PM by hawkeyefanatic84
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
the angle on the right is excellent, but i believe it is a split second too early, need to see exactly when he touched the ball. I thought it was BEYOND THE HOOP.Originally posted by northside_hawk:
Sorry still don't see anything different. I see white and gold you see black and blue. They called goal tend in real time and you can't change the call. IMO ball looks like it could have hit the rim.Originally posted by hawkeyefanatic84:
Doesn't look like a goaltend to me from the angle above the hoop as well.
This post was edited on 3/19 6:22 PM by hawkeyefanatic84
Air ball and its not even that close.
Also, why the hell would a call that would decide the outcome of a game, not be reviewable??? Alfraud got lucky twice. The committee sullied the very integrity of the tournament selection process by letting UCLA and Texas in. Then Alfraud is given this gift of a "victory". UAB all the way.
Also, why the hell would a call that would decide the outcome of a game, not be reviewable??? Alfraud got lucky twice. The committee sullied the very integrity of the tournament selection process by letting UCLA and Texas in. Then Alfraud is given this gift of a "victory". UAB all the way.
Why do you think that? It is an airball and is shot completely to the right of the basket.Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:
Looks like it's gonna hit the rim.Originally posted by wyohawk:
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Why do think that it's gonna miss it? The ball is being shot from 25 feet so it's certainly not comjng straight down. If you know the ball will continue on that path it looks like it would have at least grazed the rim. I agree that it has zero chance of going in but you have to let it hit the rim first. Even if it might miss it by a hair you are stupid to touch it and leave that judgment call up to the ref. You don't tip it away like that unless you are 100% sure it won't hit. In the end, all I heard in post game stuff on CBS was that it was widely agreed it would have touched the rim.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It had already missed the rim and was a complete airball. It was a horrible call and the talking heads were mostly gutless or stupid when they said it was the right call. It missed the rim by nearly a foot. That blown call was an absolute gift and gave an undeserving team and a scumbag coach a win. Calls that decide games like that should be reviewable. Its amazing that it takes huge blown calls like this for it to come out that the call isn't even reviewable. I wonder who's stupid idea that was.
