Paid off refs
- Thread starter vgshwk
- Start date
It’s 5.45 secs from when the ref hands the ball to when it leaves the the hand of the player inbounding the ball.
Last edited:
yes you can . so your premise is someone going in for a layup and decides to kick it back out for a wide open 3 is a travel ? that is what you are saying .
Someone on Twitter is saying that you can take two steps only if you shoot. Curbelo passed and was not in position to shoot from behind the basket. What's the correct call? Anyone know? There's obviously a lot of discussion about this play. Frazier's three-point prayer was huge.
I haven't watched it again, but it was more like 3 or 4 steps, not two.
You can see it closely in the clip above. The narrator says it was a legal play. It was two steps, then a pass.
p.s. Shout out to JDL again! I also see chitown on these boards. Go ILLINI! -- From IH Dave.
yes they have because it has always been legal .
It’s easy to get lost if you only look at the feet. As I’m dribbling, steps don’t count towards traveling until the ball is back up to my hand level. Any steps I take between the time the ball leaves my hand going toward the ground and bouncing back up do not count towards traveling. The guy took 3 steps on the baseline, but that first step was still considered part of his dribble.
It was close. To me, it looked like he took three steps: left, right, left, pass. There's no way to tell for sure from that angle, though. I think because it looked so awkward in real time is why I and others thought it was an egregious travel. It's a 50/50 call after watching it a few times. I don't really have issue with the non-call.
I just watched it 3 or 4 times. I'll never be convinced that he didn't take 3 steps and pass just before the 4th. I don't care who claims what knowledge and credentials about the rules and officiating. I'm just a guy who has been closely watching BB for a long time, and played a little back in the day when ballhandling rules were actually enforced. He finished his dribble before the first of the three steps.
It does look like that. We need a ruling from a referee in the Fox studios in New York.
No, I think most posters are saying that amount of contact between the big men was for all practical purposes, incidental, compared to the normal physical contact allowed on most possessions. Why call that now?
Refs didn't cost the game BUT they were absolutely a factor in the outcome.
5 of I'll annoys points at half should have been wiped. The Hawks would have had another possession there.
That alone COULD have been the difference in the game.
These teams are close in ability and small things matter so doing their jobs right matters. As we as the players.
Cooud they have overcome the mistakes, yes. The question is should they have had to?
Closed minds are ignorant.
All depends on what everyone considers athleticism. We all agree he can't run and isn't the fastest but if he didn't have some athletic ability he couldn't make those three point shots, those 15' turn arounds and half hook shots or spin both ways for lay ups. So IMO he's got a lot of athleticism and to win the B1G player of the year and probably the National Player of the year he must have some type of athleticism????? But since you think different than you must be right because only your voice counts on here
The goaltending call, although you may not like it, was 100% the correct call. When the ref called “ goaltending” the ball is dead and Ned’s to be brought in from the baseline. It was a “bang-bang” play, the initial call by the ref was incorrect, the rules application was “spot on”...Sometimes in sports, “shit happens”...
Thank goodness Vitale never exaggerated. I don’t think there is a tougher game to officiate than basketball. Guys are bigger, stronger, more physical and faster than ever before...good luck! Refs have good nights and bad ones..,just like players and coaches..I would sit back and concentrate on enjoying the game for the game. Do you rally believe sports are a conspiracy?
Why immediately blow it dead? Like a football official on a fumble let it play out THEN blow dead and review. In this situation no need for a quick whistle, if Illinois rebounds then blow whistle and review. When a player has a toe on the 3 point line you don’t immediately blow the whistle to review. I have no doubt it was the correct call but I think a “good “ official would not have immediately blown dead.
Count Toussaint's steps here. Like I keep repeating, the refs didn't screw one side more than the other.
Because the whistle was blown, stopping the clock/play! Officials instinctively blow whistles...and wasn’t the whistle blown by an official who saw the play differently because of angle? Are you doubting the offfivial who stopped play did not see goaltending? And when there is a goaltend, play is stopped immediately and the ball inbounded. In this case, the official “ missed” the call...and the call is correctible by rule.
Still the same outcome. To use the football fumble analogy, they would review that play that they "let go" and see that it was an incomplete pass. And then the play is dead at that point, everything that happened after is irrelevant.
They don't stop play all the time to review a toe on the line for a 3 because nothing changes except that 1 point. But they do stop to review attempts at the end of a shot clock because it can affect the time remaining.
Two. Right foot: hand is on top of ball. Left foot: picks up dribble. Right foot: he passes. Might be time to learn the rule you're complaining about.
I am not going to argue that the refs cost Iowa the game. I do feel confident in saying that play would have been called a travel if Curbelo had been more out in the open and away from the basket. There are a lot less egregious travels called during every game.
It would have been incorrectly called a travel. That's two steps. It's not really disputable. Even when you slow it down, it's two steps.
Just more proof how incompetent the refs are. Yes, obvious travel on joeT, how do they miss that?
Not the same outcome. The football analogy where the ref blows player down after a player picked up a fumble and returns for TD. If they review and find out it was a fumble and not down, they can not give the TD. Let the play “play out”. MUCH different outcome, like this play you take a legitimate score away because you blew the whistle when you should not have.
Huh? If a goal tending is called, the play is dead. Are you implying the ref knew it would be overturned so he blew his whistle after the putback? That would be rather impressive considering they had to slow it way down to see it wasn’t
If it's a clean block then you play on, which is exactly what Weiskamp did in the one second it took him to rebound the shot and put it back in.
Do you think Weiskamp was gonna stop and wonder to himself if they were gonna call a goaltend? The officials aren't that fast with the whistle I assure you.
It's a poorly written rule that needs to be changed. If the Defensive Team gets the rebound, they aren't in a position to score, but if the Offensive Team does they for damn sure are. And you're gonna stop the action immediately to review whether or not it was a goaltend? Dumb.
You let it play out until there is a clear change of possession, then you stop the game to review and set back the clock, etc. Like they do with many other scenarios.
Similar threads
