Georgetown vs West Virginia
 

Hi Guys!!

Did any of you see the Georgetown West Virginia game last Saturday. On the last play with West Virginia down by 1, the West Virginia player goes for a layup and it is blocked/goal tending.

Was it goal tending or a block and in real time would you have called it goal tending??

Ed Hightower let is remain as a block.

What do you think??

Jerry LH

Looked like a block to me.

I think Ed was following my advice and watching the rebounding action. :D

He had one eye on the shooter, one eye on the flight of the ball, and one eye on the rebounders. :D

Very close play. I think block was the right call.

As an aside, I do think it's completely unfair to criticize the call. The ESPN guys were railing on the call, saying it was a clear goaltend. It was a judgement call and I think the officials made the right decision.

I watched that play a few dozen times....It looked close to me and I'm taking the easy road here....I'm fine with the call...had it been called GT, I think I would have agreed with that too. :p

I hadn't seen this play -- just found it on the interwebs and saw the real-time and slomo versions.

My first instinct in real-time is that it is a block, not a goaltend. The timing of it seems like it is a block - that is, the block comes fairly quickly after the shot. When you have goaltending, there is always a delay.

Also, I look at the defender's position relative to the basket and where the shot was taken. If the defender is more than halfway towards the basket, it is probably a goaltend (as the ball will reach it's apex halfway to the basket).

The camera angle from the below the basket - the slomo version - is horrible. Very difficult to tell and it is *CLOSE*.

On balance, I'd say it is a block based on the regular speed video shot from mid-court -- which is a better angle. Very close though! Tough call!

Yea I was pissed that Gottleib came right out and say it was a goaltend 100%, there was no question in his mind. But then again its pretty comfy to call a game wearing a suit drinking FIJI water while someone does your hair. He even went to the length of telling the other analyst he was wrong when he mentioned there had to be some doubt.

IMO it was the right call. You can't make something up. This is what I've been hearing from people (I'm fairly new, trying to decide was is worthy to listen to, and whats BS): its worse to call something that didn't happen, than to not call something that did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTBegTM-uCY

YouTube codes are funny because sometimes you get words in amongst the codes.

OTBeg... imagine the spread was 2 and the losing coach was begging for overtime after his claim of GT. :D

Here's an interesting situation along the lines of what happened in the G-WV game.
Say the lay-up is released, and then the buzzer sounds, and then the Hoyas player tips the ball legally (before the apex).
What is the call if the ball then goes in through the bucket?

If you watched the game live and saw it at regular speed it looked like a block. Only after the highlight did it look closer to a goaltend. Close play either way .

I think it was a GT, but that is with the benefit of instant replay and many looks at that replay. That is a very tough call in that situation and any of us could and have missed such calls. I am not going to blame any official for missing this play because it could happen to any of us. Not all calls are cut and dry.

Peace

I watched numerous replays of this with four other officials that very night. All of us agreed that unless one can clearly see the ball move downward from its apex, then the block is legal. Unless it is obvious, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the defensive player making an athletic play.

On this play, even with instant replay, it is not clear that the ball has started downward.

Lastly, I don't believe that this was Ed Hightower's call anyway. He was the official on the opposite side of the basket from the drive and shot. The Trail probably had a better look than Hightower, he just happened to be tableside and thus got the brunt of Huggins's complaining.

NFHS rule: 6-7

NOTE: If A1's try or tap is legally touched in flight, the goal counts if made, if the horn sounds before or after the legal touching. If the touching is interference or goaltending by A, no points are scored. If B violates, the points are awarded – either two or three depending on whether it was a two or three-point try or tap.