Goaltending: Michigan v Purdue
 

17:18 of the 1st half.
I don't believe that the entire ball is above the level of the ring when the C whistles for GT.

Just to show how difficult GT/BI decisions are, I'll also request video of the non-GT call during the 2nd OT of the Cinci/UConn game from yesterday.
Was the ball on the way down when touched? Tough to tell.

GT/BI are my toughest calls.

GT/BI is tough, but I saw an interview in Referee where someone finally agreed with what I think are really the toughest calls -- out of bounds plays.

Maybe it's the game clock. Now a possible offensive one at 17:19 of the 2nd half.

I seriously hope that you are kidding. :eek:
The VAST majority of OOB plays are clear and simple. Occasionally there is a tough one.

GT/BI are frequently difficult situations which happen quickly, up high, and at a distance from the calling official(s).

I'm not kidding. Why would I be?

GT/BI happen infrequently, even at the highest levels. There's a couple of tough out of bounds calls every game.

What tends to bail out the crew on these tough ones is that nobody can definitively say one way or another whether the official is right.

If I Had A Nickel For Every Time ...
 

Block/charge can be tough for some, but I'm pretty good at it, always anticipating the play, not the call, and watching the defender. An unexpected out of bounds play can be tough, especially in a two person game, but I'm always willing to ask for help from my partner, receive help from my partner, of offer help to my partner (it's in every one of my pregame conferences). Goaltending is tougher for me than basket interference. But my Achilles heel is traveling, not at at the start of the dribble (easy peasey lemon squeezy), but at the end of dribble, when dribbler comes to an odd jump stop transitioning into the act of shooting.

video added
 

Both plays, same clip...


<iframe width="960" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pR5HAT_SrIE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks. I believe that both calls were missed. The first was an ICC and the second was an INC.

The first was not GT because the entire ball must be above the level of the rim to have GT.

The first was BI (not GT). It can't be GT because, in college, only the defense can commit GT and the ball was in the cylinder, so it was BI.

Bold part is irrelevant in NCAAM, any part of the ball above the rim is sufficient to have goaltending.

Incorrect on both accounts for the first play. The rule is as follows: When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has the possibility of entering the basket.

The only way you can argue no goaltending on this play is if you think there is no chance for the ball to enter the basket.

You are correct. It appears they changed the rule in the last couple of years and I missed that.

The prior rule said: "When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight".

The current rule says: "When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on
its downward flight."