The fix is in

[zls44]

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

 

[Leebo]

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.

 

[zls44]

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.

I'm willing to agree with this.

 

[minidarren]

From Gottlieb:

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

 

[Adios]

From what I am seeing, the ball was going to hit the rim and probably bounce downward. SMU clearly has low academic standards for their men's basketball program.

 

[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, Jesus, 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, Jesus, 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.