Smu | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Smu

Status
Not open for further replies.
WingU-Conn said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Blueballer said:
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.
Expand ...
For some reason, guys seem to have lot their eyesight, judgement and integrity over this one play.
 
Johnny Mac said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
Johnny Mac said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Johnny Mac said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
minidarren said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
.-.
Blueballer said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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.
 
This was the AAC's "best" and they're out in the first round. Can't wait to see next year's seedings!
 
Dooley said:
This was the AAC's "best" and they're out in the first round. Can't wait to see next year's seedings!
Expand ...

And they had a great draw. They could have easily gone Sweet 16 with Iowa State losing if they didn't choke down the stretch. Which would have been a nice follow up for the league after our run last year. Just an awful loss. There was no excuse for a so called veteran team to crumble like that down the stretch.
 
said this in the other thread...I'm curious on that "goaltending call". If the offensive player had caught the ball for an alley would they have called offensive goaltending? No way in hell. I'm not into the conspiracies, but if its truly goaltending than it would have be called both ways which it never would be.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,171
Messages
4,555,753
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom