UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[rulesmaven]

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but couldn't it be BI even if the ball doesn't seem to have a chance to go in. It looks from the overhead like the ball is just barely in the cylinder by a fraction. Everyone seems to be assuming the call was GT, but would BI be defensible in this circumstance?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

The call MAY have been TECHNICALLY correct.

It is going to be hard to have consistency on that call.

One more thing that will be reviewable in the final 2 minutes next year.

It's a judgment call, it will never be reviewable.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Are you having a stroke?

Touché

[hbk314]

That ball had no possibility of going in. An unfortunate bailout call. It appeared to be an airball and it's debatable whether it was even still above the cylinder when he touched it. Horrible way for a game to essentially end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp2x4TiYTjY

Video link ^^^ I don't know if I can embed or how.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

Adams was just on. Said why goaltending can be supported there.

Announcers within five seconds after switching from Adams said how horrible of a call that was.

Adams shouldn't be so polite next time they have him on.

I guess for me it would depend on how he supported it. I might be able to understand making the call live from an official's angle, but to back the call based on the available replays is just silly. It was awful.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I might be able to understand making the call live from an official's angle, but to back the call based on the available replays is just silly. It was awful.

That sums up my thoughts perfectly. Tough spot live, and I feel for the crew, but Adams' appearance was embarrassing. It was nice that he backed his guys, but to pretend it had a chance of going in was absurd.

I also concur with those who feel the ball was already below ring level.

Anyone else notice the C (who had the exact angle to show the airball wide) immediately look to the table and give a hand signal as if to demonstrate "a few inches short," a la football officials signaling being short of a first down?

That's when I thought they were going to get together to get the call right. Maybe his signal meant something else I'm unaware of, because they obviously didn't get together to discuss GT and they didn't get it right.

[APG]

[Camron Rust]

Excellent call. The defender can't be so dumb as the play a ball coming down at the rim.

It didn't have a high chance of going in but I've seem some unlikely bounces over the years. Unless it is going to completely miss the rim, the defender has to leave it alone.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Excellent call. The defender can't be so dumb as the play a ball coming down at the rim.

It didn't have a high chance of going in but I've seem some unlikely bounces over the years. Unless it is going to completely miss the rim, the defender has to leave it alone.

I don't see anything showing it hitting the rim or that the defender hit it before it was below the rim. He was simply going for the rebound on an absolutely awful shot, an airball, and was the victim of what will probably be the worst call of the tournament.

Originally Posted by hbk314

I don't see anything showing it hitting the rim or that the defender hit it before it was below the rim. He was simply going for the rebound on an absolutely awful shot, an airball, and was the victim of what will probably be the worst call of the tournament.

You can honestly look at the video and say that was going to be an airball had the defender not touched it? Looks clear to me it was going to hit the rim.

[Reffing Rev.]

I concur that Adam's defended the call because he has to, there was no chance of the ball going in, he knew that, and he was wishy-washy on it.

The mechanics somewhat problematic...table side T did not have the angle to make this call. C had shooter and angle. Replay has both.

GET IT RIGHT! Right?

Why can't we let the official with the call take a look and change his mind.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by AremRed

You can honestly look at the video and say that was going to be an airball had the defender not touched it? Looks clear to me it was going to hit the rim.

It may have grazed the rim. It was way long and way right. Zero chance of it going in. Horrible call with the benefit of replay.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I don't see anything showing it hitting the rim or that the defender hit it before it was below the rim. He was simply going for the rebound on an absolutely awful shot, an airball, and was the victim of what will probably be the worst call of the tournament.

I agree with you watching it live and in the video APG posted, but later on there was a side angle view showed by the network that was much more definitive. Hand hit the ball above the rim level on the way down. Great call.

Originally Posted by hbk314

Horrible call with the benefit of replay.

What do you mean by this statement? That play was not reviewable. Are you saying it should be?

[mutantducky]

I'm one to be critical of refs when it is called for, but here I have to say it was a good call. Very tough one for SMU. I seriously doubt the ball had any chance of going in. But the defender should have left it alone.
I agree with Camron

Excellent call. The defender can't be so dumb as the play a ball coming down at the rim.

It didn't have a high chance of going in but I've seem some unlikely bounces over the years. Unless it is going to completely miss the rim, the defender has to leave it alone.