Video Requests: Michigan State vs Bradley @ Des Moines

[griblets]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I completely agree. What I see is the ball still in the net when the contact occurs which is still a live ball situation. I also completely agree with the officials that this is a Flagrant 1.

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

I don't know that there is a specific ruling on the book that says this isn't goaltending except common sense. I think you open up a real can or worms if you call a goaltend on this play in which the reason for the goaltend was the player attempting to catch himself after a flagrant foul by the defense on the play.

If you thought Izzo's reaction to his player was bad during the game, calling a GT on that play might have gotten Izzo an ejection.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

The ball is actually pretty much through the rim. I doubt anyone is going to put their career on the line or their advancement to call a BI for a player that was getting knocked down and the ball shot is practically over if not over. We make judgments all the time and if I have to look so hard that I can tell if the ball is in the net off a player being fouled in that situation, I am probably not going to fall on the sword for that one. That to me is a "gotcha" call not a very good "common sense" one.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

It cleared the net enough for me.

And it's not something that's reviewable. The way you were describing it as such a blatantly missed call, I was expecting the ball to still be up by the ring when he touched the rim. The ball was at least half way out of the bottom opening of the net.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk