Smu

[John]

It was their first game. You have to do it multiple times before you're a Pitt.

They blew up my bracket like Pitt.

Pitt Lite then.

 

[tzznandrew]

They blew up my bracket like Pitt.

Pitt Lite then.

Only once (vs. Butler 2011) did the refs screw Pitt. Every other time (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005...you get the picture) Pitt screwed themselves.

You devalue Pitt's ability to blow big games by comparing SMU to them.

Give them 10 years.

 

[Scoe]

Guess we will have to carry our.conference once again, to the SMU fans chanting NIT congrats on being one game better then Uconn this year.

 

[Blueballer]

The ball was a full cylinder off to the right, and well, NOT goaltending.

This view is a bit of an illusion. Another view I saw it looked liked it was going to graze the rim, but NOWHERE near going in. All the talking heads are defending this as a good call. Technically it was because it's a judgement call based on if the ref thought it might go in. BUT I can't believe no one is questioning the refs "Judgment". Because it was not going to go in.

 

[jibsey]

Should never have come to that with a turnover on inbounds 29 sec left.

 

[Johnny Mac]

The ball was a full cylinder off to the right, and well, NOT goaltending.

That's goaltending 100 times out of 100.

 

[Scoe]

Now I'm looking at it wow that is awful, thats why you wrap it up and don't put it in these refs hands.

 

[Woof 101]

A big thank you to SMU for furthering the embarrassment of the AAC. Please next time just leave it to UCONN to represent the conference the right way in the big dance.

Sincerely,
Husky Nation

You have this to say after we could not get through one round of the NIT?

 

[Jimdish255]

Guess the HoF coach couldn't make a switch on Alford's son who lit Nic the Dic up
I don't care about the goal tending call - UCLA had a lot of unforced errors
But why not put a bigger guy on a known sharpshooter who lights you up for 9 of 11 threes?
UCLA had virtually no other threats

The moving screens that kept getting him open looked like hipchecks in hockey until they finally called one.

 

[BlueMAB]

That's goaltending 100 times out of 100.

How do you come to that conclusion? The shot has to have the chance at going in. That shot had no chance at going in. The only reason it hit the rim is because he deflected the ball into the rim.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MSupp_No_6a_2014_MBB_Rules_Executive_Summary.pdf

Here's the rule change.

Changing the goaltending rule to provide that when the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a try for goal, it is considered to be on its downward flight and is goaltending when touched by a defensive player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

That shot never had a chance at going in, therefore, not goaltending.

 

[Johnny Mac]

How do you come to that conclusion? The shot has to have the chance at going in. That shot had no chance at going in. The only reason it hit the rim is because he deflected the ball into the rim.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/MSupp_No_6a_2014_MBB_Rules_Executive_Summary.pdf

Here's the rule change.

Changing the goaltending rule to provide that when the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a try for goal, it is considered to be on its downward flight and is goaltending when touched by a defensive player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

That shot never had a chance at going in, therefore, not goaltending.

The rule change you quoted does not apply as the ball never touched the backboard. (Nor did the ball ever touch the rim.) There was little possibility of the ball ever going in but the world will never know because the SMU player touched the ball above the rim. The overhead camera angle is the best to see that the ball probably would have made contact with the rim but again, we'll never know because the SMU player touched the ball before it could ever get to the rim. Sucks to lose on a 3 point goaltending call.

 

[pnow15]

This view is a bit of an illusion. Another view I saw it looked liked it was going to graze the rim, but NOWHERE near going in. All the talking heads are defending this as a good call. Technically it was because it's a judgement call based on if the ref thought it might go in. BUT I can't believe no one is questioning the refs "Judgment". Because it was not going to go in.

For some reason, guys seem to have lot their eyesight, judgement and integrity over this one play.

 

[tzznandrew]

The rule change you quoted does not apply as the ball never touched the backboard. (Nor did the ball ever touch the rim.) There was little possibility of the ball ever going in but the world will never know because the SMU player touched the ball above the rim. The overhead camera angle is the best to see that the ball probably would have made contact with the rim but again, we'll never know because the SMU player touched the ball before it could ever get to the rim. Sucks to lose on a 3 point goaltending call.

Doesn't not matter if the ball would have contacted the rim. It has to have the chance of going in. It didn't.

The end.

 

[Walker11]

Could this gave fallen under the rule of basket interference?

I can't copy and paste on my phone, but basket interference is "touching the ball when it is within the cylinder extending upwards from the rim."

I'm not convinced that it was even within the cylinder, it certainly doesn't look to be in on angle, but it looks possible from the over head angle.

 

[BlueMAB]

The rule change you quoted does not apply as the ball never touched the backboard. (Nor did the ball ever touch the rim.) There was little possibility of the ball ever going in but the world will never know because the SMU player touched the ball above the rim. The overhead camera angle is the best to see that the ball probably would have made contact with the rim but again, we'll never know because the SMU player touched the ball before it could ever get to the rim. Sucks to lose on a 3 point goaltending call.

The rule is the same whether it hits the backboard or not. The ball never had a chance to go in, it shouldn't have been called, but I can see why it was. Either way it was still a bonehead play by the SMU player.

 

[Greathusky]

He already did

He sat motionless as his team completely gave away a game they had wrapped up, not calling a single timeout.

Larry had bronchitis. He could barely stand up.

 

[mauconnfan]

The rule change you quoted does not apply as the ball never touched the backboard. (Nor did the ball ever touch the rim.) There was little possibility of the ball ever going in but the world will never know because the SMU player touched the ball above the rim. The overhead camera angle is the best to see that the ball probably would have made contact with the rim but again, we'll never know because the SMU player touched the ball before it could ever get to the rim. Sucks to lose on a 3 point goaltending call.

BS that's NOT goaltending 100 times out of 100. There is no other way to look at this, it's wide right and easily there's no illusion here.

 

[uconn_jack]

If anything, the SMU tip of the ball gave it more of a chance to go in than it ever did itself.

 

[Kembacity]

Regardless, the refs don't call an goaltending when the ball is below the rim. There are 3 men getting paid out there. The kids blowing a lead are playing a game. The refs are working a job. You don't up that bad.

I disagree, in replays in slo-mo, it looks not like a goaltend, but the kid put his hands above the rim to get the ball with 10 seconds left. Just keep your hands right below the rim in case it misses everything... If this was a play Brimah made to blow a game, you all would blame him, not the refs

Why are people harder on our guys than others?

 

[Kembacity]

They really should be allowed to go to the tape to confirm a goaltending call in teh final 2 minutes, because a game shouldnt be decided by a wrong goaltending call.

I think the ref made the right call, you cant grab that ball as its coming in, and the ref has to call it, because if he doesnt and it turns out its an actual goaltend, then you've completely screwed the other team... Gotta check the tape there, even though no angle showed it clear enough whether it was or wasnt

Side note: had no idea Moreira was a senior, I was afraid he was like a soph, so I'm just glad we dont have to see him again

 

[Tdaley]

Very tough call to decide a game. Refs normally don't like to make that kind of call at that juncture of a game unless its an obvious call that they have no choice but to make. If an offensive player touch the ball in that position would the call have been made? That ball had no chance of going in and its questionable whether it would have touched the rim. One camera angle suggest that it would not have but another one suggested the opposite. UCLA caught a huge break.

 

[mets1090]

If that call was not made, is anyone suggesting it should have been goaltending the next day? Probably not.

In a world where fouls are almost never called with less than 30 seconds left, that call is made? It's baffling.

 

[CallMeBruce]

This view is a bit of an illusion. Another view I saw it looked liked it was going to graze the rim, but NOWHERE near going in. All the talking heads are defending this as a good call. Technically it was because it's a judgement call based on if the ref thought it might go in. BUT I can't believe no one is questioning the refs "Judgment". Because it was not going to go in.

All the talking heads? You must have not watched the postgame. The studio crew was killing the refs for this, and then they were killing the NCAA rep who came on the try to justify the call.

 

[The Funster]

I'm surprised Brown isn't going nuts in the press over this. Could you see this being called against Duke? Coach K would be plastered all over the media.

 

[ctchamps]

My opinion was that call was Smu t.