The fix is in

[Walker11]

Is the rule that the ball needs to have a chance of going in or a chance of hitting the rim? I think it was going to graze the rim but it obviously had no chance of going in.

 

[tzznandrew]

If it's so obviously not hitting the rim...why is the guy trying to grab it? Hmm?

? You mean a rebound?

Or do you mean the fact that he tried to block it? I mean, players can misjudge too. Even in your picture from Gottlieb, it is clearly not going in. It's at best about to carom off. It has literally no shot of going in one way or the other, and that's in the definition of goaltending.

 

[The Funster]

I think the ball was going to touch the rim. It had no chance of going in though.

 

[minidarren]

The guy who made the call could not possibly have had an angle to see that it was wide right, so if anyone deems it the right call, it happened by blind luck.

But some are saying that it was the right call and then agreeing with you. So let me get this, the guy with no view of the play got the right call. Because it was luck? Do officials officiate on luck or the things they see with their eyes?

 

[tcf15]

Is the rule that the ball needs to have a chance of going in or a chance of hitting the rim? I think it was going to graze the rim but it obviously had no chance of going in.

 

[zls44]

But some are saying that it was the right call and then agreeing with you. So let me get this, the guy with no view of the play got the right call. Because it was luck? Do officials officiate on luck or the things they see with their eyes?

Because of a vast anti-AAC conspiracy, I hate it when we have to repeat ourselves around here.

 

[pnow15]

If he doesn't touch the ball, it's GOING to hit the rim. That is a lock-on correct call. You can't judge a ball that's gonna hit the rim isn't going to go in- not with how insane that game was ending.


It stinks for the AAC, but they got that call right.

Was never, going to hit the rim.

 

[tzznandrew]

Because of a vast anti-AAC conspiracy, I hate it when we have to repeat ourselves around here.

It was a terrible call. Embarrassingly bad. And it hurt our conference.

But that doesn't mean there was some conspiracy. Bad calls happen all the time. Even to P5 schools. Happened for us, and against us, in the NCAAs throughout the past.

 

[Walker11]

Its amazing how this inaccuracy has been perpetuated. I didn't realize this, the studio guys had no idea (and still don't) and the majority of the board doesn't get it. I thought it was common sense that if the ball had was going to hit the rim, goaltending is an easy call.

 

[businesslawyer]

It had no chance of going in - it had passed the cylinder and would have had to defy physics, gravity and everything in explored science to go in.
.

So a majority of Iowa Republicans thought it was going in and all Republican Presidential candidates are going to pretend they don't disagree? (I kid, I kid.)

 

[tzznandrew]

Its amazing how this inaccuracy has been perpetuated. I didn't realize this, the studio guys had no idea (and still don't) and the majority of the board doesn't get it. I thought it was common sense that if the ball had was going to hit the rim, goaltending is an easy call.

What am I misreading?

(1) It has to be on its downward flight (check); and
(2) have the possibility of of entering the basket (not checked).
​

That's what 3.a.2 says. It has to have the ability to go into the basket. It fails to meet that.

 

[tcf15]

What am I misreading. It has to be on its downward flight (check) and have the possibility of of entering the basket (not checked). That's what 3.a.2 says. It has to have the ability to go into the basket. It fails to meet that.

Yeah, I'm reading it the same as you. There was no way that shot was ever going into the basket.

 

[Mots010]

Yeah, I'm reading it the same as you. There was no way that shot was ever going into the basket.

The NCAA dude on TV took the angle that if it had a chance to hit the rim, it had a chance to go in, which seems a bit weak. The rules should state that.

 

[Walker11]

What am I misreading. It has to be on its downward flight (check) and have the possibility of of entering the basket (not checked). That's what 3.a.2 says. It has to have the ability to go into the basket. It fails to meet that.

I think we are on the same page. My point is that a majority of people, myself included, didn't understand the rule.

 

[tzznandrew]

The NCAA dude on TV took the angle that if it had a chance to hit the rim, it had a chance to go in, which seems a bit weak. The rules should state that.

And he's wrong.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think we are on the same page. My point is that a majority of people, myself included, didn't understand the rule.

I misread you, then. Sorry.

 

[tcf15]

I think we are on the same page. My point is that a majority of people, myself included, didn't understand the rule.

Yeah, stating in the rules that there needs to be a possibility for the ball to enter the cylinder changes everything.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Terrible call.

Stop it with the conspiracy theories.

 

[NutmegDog]

I think we are on the same page. My point is that a majority of people, myself included, didn't understand the rule.

I think the problem is that the rule on "basket interference" (aka Offensive goaltending) does not have the "possibility of going in" part -- for obvious reasons. True goaltending requires that the ball have a chance of going in. Even to me, on real time on TV, it was patently obvious that Alford's shot did not meet that test. It NEVER COULD HAVE GONE IN.

The ref choked. It happens. But that ref really needs to be benched for the rest of the tourney.

 

[upstater]

Spanarkel thinks the shot might have been a curveball apparently.

Even Lundquist said it was well off to the right.

In Spanarkel's defense, they kept showing the overhead which didn't show where Moreira tipped it. You couldn't see the depth of the ball. From the side angle, there was definitely space between the rim and the ball when the ball dropped lower.

 

[upstater]

Its amazing how this inaccuracy has been perpetuated. I didn't realize this, the studio guys had no idea (and still don't) and the majority of the board doesn't get it. I thought it was common sense that if the ball had was going to hit the rim, goaltending is an easy call.

The ball was definitely not going to hit the rim. The overhead view made it seem that way, but the side view showed a few inches between the ball and the ring (ball was lower than the ring actually).

 

[UChusky916]

Can you imagine the state of this board if UConn ever got royally by a call like that in the tournament?!

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

What am I misreading?

(1) It has to be on its downward flight (check); and
(2) have the possibility of of entering the basket (not checked).
​

That's what 3.a.2 says. It has to have the ability to go into the basket. It fails to meet that.

The problem is, no one knows that. The chances are low that it was going to have a shot at going in, but it certainly would've hit the rim in some capacity, so you can interpret it as having the possibility of entering the basket just based solely on that - despite the probability being extremely low. The main point is, the SMU guy should never have had his hand there in the first place. It's a horribly timed jump for a rebound, and he has to have the control to know when to not go for the ball. It's unfortunate, but not wrong, and certainly not a conspiracy.

 

[jibsey]

UCLA WASN't even supposed to be in the field, have you all forgotten?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Simple. . . . SMU from the AAC (zero national championships) or . . . UCLA from a P5 conference with a truck load of national championships. Who do think TV wants to see playing again on Saturday? And what TV wants, TV gets. They do not want this conference meddling in the P5 Party like last year. So yeah . . . Fixed.

 

[upstater]

The problem is, no one knows that. The chances are low that it was going to have a shot at going in, but it certainly would've hit the rim in some capacity, so you can interpret it as having the possibility of entering the basket just based solely on that - despite the probability being extremely low. The main point is, the SMU guy should never have had his hand there in the first place. It's a horribly timed jump for a rebound, and he has to have the control to know when to not go for the ball. It's unfortunate, but not wrong, and certainly not a conspiracy.

The ball was already half below the rim and to the side when he touche3d it. In other words, it was not going to hit the rim.

 

[gtcam]

The crew on set thinks it was the wrong call.

I have heard dozens of people discuss the call and t's running about 60% think it was the right call
Replays show his hand above the rim and touching the ball on the way down - now I'm not saying that untouched it was going in but you can't say 70% of the shots where goaltending is called were going in as a fact

 

[tzznandrew]

I have heard dozens of people discuss the call and t's running about 60% think it was the right call
Replays show his hand above the rim and touching the ball on the way down - now I'm not saying that untouched it was going in but you can't say 70% of the shots where goaltending is called were going in as a fact

You can't know in those shots.

This one was an obvious miss. Come on. It was about to carom off the side of the basket. Far different than many goaltends.

 

[gtcam]

The bottom of the ball is below the rim. Was it going to levitate at that moment and take an immediate left turn?

Gottlieb needs to get his eyes examined

 

[gtcam]

You can't know in those shots.

This one was an obvious miss. Come on. It was about to carom off the side of the basket. Far different than many goaltends.

it was still touched on the way down above the rim