UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

You didn't answer my question. What are you looking for by your constant complaints about this play. You've been provided answers by officials, and you are not satisfied. So what do you want?

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

Sounds just like a fan complaining about a rule he doesn't like.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You didn't answer my question. What are you looking for by your constant complaints about this play. You've been provided answers by officials, and you are not satisfied. So what do you want?



Sounds just like a fan complaining about a rule he doesn't like.

And this is where you lose credibility. Dismissing people as merely "fans," like that somehow makes someone an idiot. I'm reading the text of the rule posted in this thread and I don't believe the conditions were met. It's as simple as that.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

Until it bounces off the rim, you can't really tell with 100% certainty that it is not going in....that is what you're missing. I have seem some very unlikely shots go in.

Officials don't get stop frame views from over the basket. They have to call it from the court in real time. As such, the applicable criteria will be that it is still a try in flight until it has clearly MISSED the rim or has bounced off.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Until it bounces off the rim, you can't really tell with 100% certainty that it is not going in....that is what you're missing. I have seem some very unlikely shots go in.

Officials don't get stop frame views from over the basket. They have to call it from the court in real time. As such, the applicable criteria will be that it is still a try in flight until it has clearly MISSED the rim or has bounced off.

Which is why I've acknowledged that I can see how it was made in real-time. I just don't feel like the replays support the call.

[dahoopref]

This exact situation occurred to me in a college tournament in December.

I was the L (table side), 3 pt shot came from C area and the ball barely passed over on the way down when the defender grabbed the ball even with the rim. The C & I knew the ball did not have a chance to go in but the T called goaltending because (according to him) his angle justified his call at the time.

I gathered the crew after the whistle and asked them what they saw. We explained to the T what we saw and he knew he made a mistake.

We rectified the call by ruling "inadvertent whistle" and resumed play at the POI when the defender had the ball to keep possession.

Our conference commissioner and supervisor were in the stands and supported our ruling.

The entire crew ended up working the conference tournament a few weeks ago.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

This exact situation occurred to me in a college tournament in December.

I was the L (table side), 3 pt shot came from C area and the ball barely passed over on the way down when the defender grabbed the ball even with the rim. The C & I knew the ball did not have a chance to go in but the T called goaltending because (according to him) his angle justified his call at the time.

I gathered the crew after the whistle and asked them what they saw. We explained to the T what we saw and he knew he made a mistake.

We rectified the call by ruling "inadvertent whistle" and resumed play at the POI when the defender had the ball to keep possession.

Our conference commissioner and supervisor were in the stands and supported our ruling.

The entire crew ended up working the conference tournament a few weeks ago.

Why are you - as Lead - looking above the rim on a try?