The fix is in

[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

 

[Leebo]

It wasn't going in. And it obviously wasn't going in. That's the only important piece of info.

 

[dtrumpet]

these conspiracy comments are ridiculous, please stop.

the overhead camera angle is inconclusive, the one from the left side is best...that ball was not near the rim.

what a great day of games.

 

[tzznandrew]

it was still touched on the way down above the rim

Read the rule:

It has to be going down, above the rim, and have the possibility of going in.

It wasn't doing the last of the three. Therefore, it's not a goaltend.

 

[tzznandrew]

these conspiracy comments are ridiculous, please stop.

the overhead camera angle is inconclusive, the one from the left side is best...that ball was not near the rim.

what a great day of games.

Not a conspiracy. A bad call.

If there was a conspiracy against the American, they failed horribly against a Cincy team that seemed to want to lose.

 

[Husky25]

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

Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left.

(Too soon?)

 

[dtrumpet]

Not a conspiracy. A bad call.

If there was a conspiracy against the American, they failed horribly against a Cincy team that seemed to want to lose.

no kidding. Caupain gets the friendly roll after badly missing an easy layup after the steal. Just one bonehead play after another, but they move on. Purdue didn't get the bounces on the rim Cinci did when it counted. If they beat Kentucky, I'll take back all the bad things I've said about them.

 

[Jimdish255]

That call was well beyond bad. And I'm not certain that refs are told to put the fix in, but damn it certainly is suspicious at times. There was a blatant travel that they missed on UCLA as well when one of their players went sliding along the floor with a ball in their hand.

Also felt SMU player was fouled while shooting on previous posession. Referee comes on TV and attempts to rewrite the laws of gravity for our lying eyes.

 

[sammydabiz]

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 probability isn't low, it's ZERO...... Under no circumstance would that ball of ever gone in. If you think otherwise, I'd advise you to take a physics class.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Well if you think the FIX is in... I wonder if ya looked at the Harvard vs North Carolina game. That late foul was no foul. It clearly showed how digusting the NCAA has become. There was absolutely no FOUL there. Yet, they had to make one up because Harvard was about to win this . such bull

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So the conspiracy theories are ridiculous? SMU, Northeastern, Harvard and VCU all lost games in which there were some level of controversial call against the non-P5 team. Where are the games were controversial calls broke against the P5 team?

The BE teams seem to be in some kind of middle ground, because I thought the Texas/Butler and Xavier/Mississippi games were called fairly.

 

[Jimdish255]

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.

He was acting as the fixer, but in attempting to protect the guy who made the mistake his obvious misdirection calls into question everyones credibility.

 

[David 76]

Who said: "the AAC with no championships"?
Shame on you!
I think the conspiracy would have stopped us last year.

 

[dtrumpet]

So the conspiracy theories are ridiculous? SMU, Northeastern, Harvard and VCU all lost games in which there were some level of controversial call against the non-P5 team. Where are the games were controversial calls broke against the P5 team?

The BE teams seem to be in some kind of middle ground, because I thought the Texas/Butler and Xavier/Mississippi games were called fairly.

Smu blew a 7 point lead on their own throwing the ball away. Harvard had the ball in their best player's hands shooting with a chance to win. Neither one of those things happen if there really is a "conspiracy".

 

[tzznandrew]

So the conspiracy theories are ridiculous? SMU, Northeastern, Harvard and VCU all lost games in which there were some level of controversial call against the non-P5 team. Where are the games were controversial calls broke against the P5 team?

The BE teams seem to be in some kind of middle ground, because I thought the Texas/Butler and Xavier/Mississippi games were called fairly.

Iowa State and Baylor both lost. Those were P5 schools losing to low majors, let along "mid-majors."

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Smu blew a 7 point lead on their own throwing the ball away. Harvard had the ball in their best player's hands shooting with a chance to win. Neither one of those things happen if there really is a "conspiracy".

Did you see a Foul? Oh c'mon. I'm not the one for conspiracy theories... But did you see the Foul? ANY Foul? We are talking about North Carolina here... about to lose to Harvard if that foul wasn't called. Harvard had the ball and they lose it on a "Foul" that was no foul. That's all you need to lose a game when its close. A bad call can throw you off. Can kill momentum. It was a terrible call at a crucial point of the game

Even worst. ESPN decided not to even report on it. jesussschrist