NCAA really needs to change the rules about what can be reviewed in the final two minutes, as we have discussed before. At best, the "goal-tended shot" would have barely touched the side of the rim and had no chance of going in. Either the review rule needs to be tossed out completely, except for last second shots, or it needs to be expanded to make sure that calls are correct.
UCLA win
- Thread starter HoustonREDHawk
- Start date
It was a terrible way to end the game, even if it was correct the way the rule is written. But take it a little further to the extreme. If the shot was a foot or more off and the players grabs the ball above the rim level, is it still goal-tending? Did it still have a "reasonable chance" of gong in? I realize there's got to be SOME judgment needed on the part of the officials, but under review there was ZERO chance that ball was going in. It was hardly going to hit the rim.
I still believe, if it was going to touch the rim, it would have already done so by the time the SMU player touched it.
I don't believe it's any sort of conspiracy to allow the name brand to move on, just regular run-of-the-mill referee incompetence. You absolutely can't call that there.
I don't believe it's any sort of conspiracy to allow the name brand to move on, just regular run-of-the-mill referee incompetence. You absolutely can't call that there.
The call was correct....just because the shot in all probability was not going to go in, doesn't mean it wasn't goaltending. You can review all you want, but by the rule, it was goaltending.
The circumstances were different, but did anyone else have a Lorenzo Charles flashback after this call?
RIP Mr. Charles.
This post was edited on 3/20 10:18 AM by 4th & 9 inches
RIP Mr. Charles.
This post was edited on 3/20 10:18 AM by 4th & 9 inches
It is a judgment call and no amount of replay would change that. Should we have repay now where a ref can say, "Stop! I want to look at that before I call it!"? We'd never see the end of games.
Believe me, I did not want to see UCLA win, and I don't agree with the call. In my judgment, the ball did have a chance to go in.
But in this case one has to remember the ref has the whistle. In real time, from his angle, he has to decide.
Believe me, I did not want to see UCLA win, and I don't agree with the call. In my judgment, the ball did have a chance to go in.
But in this case one has to remember the ref has the whistle. In real time, from his angle, he has to decide.
Watching Alford win is like eating a bowl of puke. But Dan is right. Can't take human factor out of the game. Only thing that should be reviewed in basketball is buzzer beating shot. Unlike football there aren't any real breaks in basketball.
It is possible the shot could have hit the rim and back spun into the backboard, etc.... Unlikely but not unreasonably possible. The rule needs to be better written.
It is possible the shot could have hit the rim and back spun into the backboard, etc.... Unlikely but not unreasonably possible. The rule needs to be better written.
It was the correct call. You can't touch the ball as it's downward trajectory if, in the mind of the official, it can hit the rim. Looked to me like it was going to hit the right side of the rim. All of the pundits on CBS agreed with the call.
We want all the upsets in South Region as we can get.
If you watched all twelve hours of basketball yesterday, you saw some unbelievable calls, many of which seemed to favor the same team over and over. This isn't good for the NCAA as it raises suspicion regarding the predetermined outcome of games.
It appears that according to the rulebook, it wasn't the correct call. Check out the linked article for the video and rule definition.
Deadspin article
Deadspin article
The call gave UCLA the lead. UCLA had rebound and probable follow that would have tied game. SMU still had two shots that would have won game of made
It was critical and gutsy call but SMU still had their chances
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It was critical and gutsy call but SMU still had their chances
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The ball cannot be touched above the cylinder. That's an easy call. Now you want refs to decide whether a ball could have gone down? Goal tending is not a penalty for not letting the ball go through the basket, there is simply a point at which you can no longer touch the ball. What exactly would have been reviewed? They would have concluded the ball was touched while above the rim, therefore goaltending.
We had the goaltending discussion a week ago on a shot by Woody, where the ball was on the rim, but looked like it was not going in. Fran went off, because he thought it should have been called. There are judgment calls, and that is part of the game. Consistency with officiating is a big problem, but I personally would prefer not to have replay, except for last second shots and maybe instances like the Purdue-Cincy game where a Cincy player threw a clear intentional elbow to Hammons neck.
No, they could have reviewed and confirmed that the ball never entered the cylinder, which, by the definition you just provided, would not be grounds for goaltending.
However, due to the whistle and stopped play, the damage had already been done and, even with a reversed and correct call, the play and moment would have already been corrupted.
There may even be cause to believe that the ref accidentally blew the whistle and had to justify it in this situation. Inexcusable.
I retract the laugh. I thought a typo may have been the case, reading through the rest of your post.Originally posted by DanL53:
Typo. NOT have a chance to go in.Originally posted by fivecardstud14:
NBA you can review goaltending in the final 2 minutes, which is the way it should be. But reading the thoughts of the rest of the people in here, it appears they don't want that since "it takes too long." I guess people have other places to be, and they'd rather get the game over with as opposed to getting the call correct.
It was clearly in the cylinder. Being above any part of the rim is in the cylinder. Replay clearly showed that as every commentator agreed.
No problem. I'd have laughed as well if I meant that.Originally posted by fivecardstud14:
I retract the laugh. I thought a typo may have been the case, reading through the rest of your post.Originally posted by DanL53:
Typo. NOT have a chance to go in.Originally posted by fivecardstud14:
NBA you can review goaltending in the final 2 minutes, which is the way it should be. But reading the thoughts of the rest of the people in here, it appears they don't want that since "it takes too long." I guess people have other places to be, and they'd rather get the game over with as opposed to getting the call correct.
Look, I'm tired of arguing with you folks about this, especially when, provided all the evidence, you still refuse to accept the facts that:
1) the ball was not in the cylinder nor above the rim. It was not going to touch the rim. It was an airball. The defender could not have touched it where he did if it was in any trajectory to touch any part of the rim.
2) a review of any length and degree would have overturned the call. UCLA probably would have received the ball out of bounds with another chance to try and make a winning shot, which isn't fair, but is as fair as they can deem when blowing a whistle in the middle of a contested rebound. UCLA still has the burden to make a winning shot.
3) the call totally decided the game. SMU was going to win, they just had to defend. The onus was on UCLA to make a tough shot to turn the situation around. Alford chucked up a garbage shot, it missed everything, and yet a referee error allowed UCLA to win WITHOUT making a winning shot.
An absolute garbage call that stands as a microcosm of college basketball officiating in general. The only thing positive about this for us is that it didn't occur against Iowa. But it very well could have.
Again, these are facts. If you disagree, look at the evidence again. Quit arguing just to be obstinate and contradictory.
I'm out.
1) the ball was not in the cylinder nor above the rim. It was not going to touch the rim. It was an airball. The defender could not have touched it where he did if it was in any trajectory to touch any part of the rim.
2) a review of any length and degree would have overturned the call. UCLA probably would have received the ball out of bounds with another chance to try and make a winning shot, which isn't fair, but is as fair as they can deem when blowing a whistle in the middle of a contested rebound. UCLA still has the burden to make a winning shot.
3) the call totally decided the game. SMU was going to win, they just had to defend. The onus was on UCLA to make a tough shot to turn the situation around. Alford chucked up a garbage shot, it missed everything, and yet a referee error allowed UCLA to win WITHOUT making a winning shot.
An absolute garbage call that stands as a microcosm of college basketball officiating in general. The only thing positive about this for us is that it didn't occur against Iowa. But it very well could have.
Again, these are facts. If you disagree, look at the evidence again. Quit arguing just to be obstinate and contradictory.
I'm out.
1 - do you know what a cylinder is? It is not a circle. The rim is a circle and the cylinder extends infinitely upwards from the rim. Any ball, going in any direction, that is touched while above the rim, no matter how much of the ball may be in the cylinder, is goal tending. Most goal tending calls are made where balls are on a downward trajectory and not even close to the rim. This was, by the book, a very easy call because the ball was still above the rim when touched. Doesn't matter if untouched it would have just sailed over.
2 - everybody and their brother has reviewed that play and all said it was the correct call. Just what do you think the refs would have seen differently?
3 - doesn't matter
2) a review of any length and degree would have overturned the call. UCLA probably would have received the ball out of bounds with another chance to try and make a winning shot, which isn't fair, but is as fair as they can deem when blowing a whistle in the middle of a contested rebound. UCLA still has the burden to make a winning shot.
This is just flat out incorrect....based on the rule an official could have looked at it for 3 days and still would have called it goaltending, BASED ON THE RULE. Again, whether the shot would have gone in or not is not revelent, the ball was on its downward flight, above the rim, a player touched it...GOALTENDING, end of discussion.
This is just flat out incorrect....based on the rule an official could have looked at it for 3 days and still would have called it goaltending, BASED ON THE RULE. Again, whether the shot would have gone in or not is not revelent, the ball was on its downward flight, above the rim, a player touched it...GOALTENDING, end of discussion.
He thinks it was tipped below the rim.
It could have been wide right IMO but it looks to me that it never had the opportunity to get to rim level. In other words the bottom of the ball never got to rim level and it looks like the edge of the ball may have at least nicked the edge of the rim...IMO.
[/URL]
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This post was edited on 3/20 12:17 PM by jaffarosenfels
How anyone can look at that and not say airball is being ridiculous. His hand was behind the rim on the weak side. It was an airball all day. No way in hell that's touching the rim because it was and airball on the weakside.Originally posted by jaffarosenfels:
He thinks it was tipped below the rim.
It could have been wide right IMO but it looks to me that it never had the opportunity to get to rim level. In other words the bottom of the ball never got to rim level and it looks like the edge of the ball may have at least nicked the edge of the rim...IMO.
[/URL]
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This post was edited on 3/20 12:17 PM by jaffarosenfels
Airball
Airball
Airball
Airball
Right call as per the rules? Probably, still a damn airball.
the ball was to the right of the rim and looked like over half of the ball was below the rim. Total Bs call. That ref should go back to high school. These refs have no common sense. Who is ever in charge of officials needs to clean alot up in college basketball. Coaches that leave the coaching box technical. No ands ifs or buts its a technical. You have a defined area stay in it you get one technical on first infraction then booted on second.
More of the ball was in the cylinder on Woody's shot, when Fran got a technical, than on Alford's shot, which might have barely hit the outside of the rim at best. Was it ever in the cylinder, is the question. In the replays I sure don't see the ball in the cylinder, although it is mostly higher than the rim. That all of the talking idiots on CBS agreed with the officials, really means very little about right or wrong. Tough way to lose. Glad I am not a SMU fan.
Why should the fact that CBS experts agree the call was right mean anything? They rarely call out the officiating. I'm sure the NCAA has "counseled" the talking heads to avoid ref criticism, over concern that it would undermine integrity blah blah blah. Same reason conferences muzzle coaches. It was a bad call.
The NCAA rules guru was on the tube this morning. Said the call was absolutely right. According to him, until the ball hits the rim, it isn't possible for the officials to know whether or not it had a chance of going in.....even when it's clearly going to miss everything by a foot and a half.
Yes, the rule needs to be changed.
Yes, the rule needs to be changed.
Maybe less of a rule or referee problem and more of a boneheaded play problem. You don't see this call very often because most bigs are aware that if it might hit the rim you don't touch it until the ball drops completely below the rim.
Well, maybe when those individuals who get paid to call the game on the floor, you know, the officials, and those ex professional players and coaches who are getting paid to analyze the game all have the opinion that is different from yours, maybe you are wrong? I mean, they couldn't possibly know more than you, could they?
Similar threads
NCAA agrees to end transfer rules permanently; athletes who lost eligibility will have year restored
