UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[APG]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

What is the point of this thread? Are we using this play to get better or to take votes on "worst call of the tournament" - which is really, an absolutely ridiculous claim. I've been reading a long time, and although only recently began sporadic posting, often wonder how many people ragging on challenging calls like this are actually officials.

If we aren't using the video to get better, what is the point? Three pages of comments and very few takeaways or rules investigation.

hbk isn't an official

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by APG

hbk isn't an official

No surprising. I'm just waiting for someone to request that you post full game film from every tournament game with an excel spreadsheet of every play, graded by you as correct or incorrect.

I think video is an excellent tool and we all are in your debt for your work. but the requests seem to become less about learning and more about complaining around this time each year.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by APG

hbk isn't an official

He shows up to rip officials and entertain us.

[ODog]

Anyone have any insight as to what the C might've been indicating by his hands-apart "this many inches" signal right after the whistle blew?

Just like an NFL official demonstrating how short a team is of a first down after a measurement.

He did it right away and walked toward the table. I assumed he was saying "it was 6 inches wide of the hoop" and I anticipated a review, but that was before I knew this call is not reviewable.

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

Originally Posted by ODog

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

That's what I think it is. When they show the officials going to the monitor the official does the signal again to the scorer showing that he had a three.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ODog

Anyone have any insight as to what the C might've been indicating by his hands-apart "this many inches" signal right after the whistle blew?

Just like an NFL official demonstrating how short a team is of a first down after a measurement.

He did it right away and walked toward the table. I assumed he was saying "it was 6 inches wide of the hoop" and I anticipated a review, but that was before I knew this call is not reviewable.

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

Signaling he had a three...no need to go w/a full touchdown signal in this instance.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Rich

He shows up to rip officials and entertain us.

I'm not ripping officials in this case. I'm judging the call based on the rule posted in this thread.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I'm not ripping officials in this case. I'm judging the call based on the rule posted in this thread.

Well, either you don't understand the rule or your idea of possibility of entering the basket is off.

If it is coming down such that it will hit the rim, it has some chance of going in even if that chance is very small. The defender has to leave it alone until after it his and bounces back out or is CLEARLY going to fall short of the rim.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Well, either you don't understand the rule or your idea of possibility of entering the basket is off.

If it is coming down such that it will hit the rim, it has some chance of going in even if that chance is very small. The defender has to leave it alone until after it his and bounces back out or is CLEARLY going to fall short of the rim.

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

No it isn't.

[Rufus]

Have to admit I thought the officials had blown this one. From the usual broadcast angle it appeared the ball was below the rim and wide right (i.e., did not have a chance of going in). No question on it being a try or on downward flight.

Looking at the other angles the ball was contacted above the rim and, as has already been stated, still had a chance of going in. Great call by the official who had the best look at it. Clutch call that I hope I have the guts to make when put in the same situation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

Only for a non-official who questions something, gets an answer, then continues to question it. You'll never be satisfied, so what is your purpose with continuing the conversation?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Only for a non-official who questions something, gets an answer, then continues to question it. You'll never be satisfied, so what is your purpose with continuing the conversation?

Because it was at best going to glance off the side of the rim and fall harmlessly to the floor. It was never going in.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

Please just stop. You convey your extreme ignorance every time you post.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Please just stop. You convey your extreme ignorance every time you post.

A ball that grazes the outer edge of the rim has no possibility of going in. According the rule as written, goaltending couldn't be called. According to the interpretation talked about in this thread, it could be. There's a narrow window where the two don't agree.