UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[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.

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

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

I'd bet good money this call will not be reviewable at any time in the near future.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I guess we have to define what "has the possibility of entering the basket" means. Personally I think the ball would have hit the rim and bounced off, does that mean that the ball did or did not have a chance to enter the basket?

"Art. 3. Goaltending.
a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a fieldgoal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exceptions: Rule 10-4.1.i)
1. The ball is on its downward flight; and
2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder."

More like, what does "while in flight" mean. I think that means until the try ends, and the try had not ended. The ball probably would have grazed the front of the rim and fallen or maybe bounced back toward the direction it came from. Would it probably have entered the basket? No. But could it possibly have? Yes. Gutsy call, but I think it was the correct call.

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.

Good idea, but how do you review it if it's not called on the floor? Treat it as a correctable error? I guess that would be the way to go. You're right, this will probably now be reviewable in the future by coach request in the same way a FF1/2 can be reviewable even if not initially called on the floor.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

"Art. 3. Goaltending.
a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a fieldgoal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exceptions: Rule 10-4.1.i)
1. The ball is on its downward flight; and
2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder."

More like, what does "while in flight" mean. I think that means until the try ends, and the try had not ended. The ball probably would have grazed the front of the rim and fallen or maybe bounced back toward the direction it came from. Would it probably have entered the basket? No. But could it possibly have? Yes. Gutsy call, but I think it was the correct call.

While in flight means until it is either 1) made, 2) missed, or 3) touches rim. If the ball hits rim and is coming off and no longer in the cylinder, goaltending no longer applies. So I would say GT never applies after the ball has hit the rim, only BI can apply. Thus, the focus really is on what "possibility of entering the basket" means.

[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.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

Charles Barkley defended the call.

[Sharpshooternes]

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 thought it was a great call too. I also think Adams should have been more "Adams"ment that it was a good GT. Does anyone know if He has suffered a stroke in the past. He has at least 2 of the four symptoms, ie slurred speech and facial drooping.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I thought it was a great call too. I also think Adams should have been more "Adams"ment that it was a good GT. Does anyone know if He has suffered a stroke in the past. He has at least 2 of the door symptoms, ie slurred speech and facial drooping.

Are you having a stroke?

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

Charles Barkley defended the call.

Thread over folks, we can all go home. Charles said it was a good call.

[MechanicGuy]

"Chance to go in" is problematic.

I also have a small problem with the T calling that from his position on the floor. If there's such a thing as being straightlined on a goaltending call, he was it.

C had the best look, though he also had the shooter, etc....

Really tough call all the way around. I can be swayed either way.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Are you having a stroke?

Touché

[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]

[mtn335]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

The call MAY have been TECHNICALLY correct.

[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.