UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

You've got dozens of officials telling you that you're reading the rule wrong and you won't listen.

You're proving him right.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've got dozens of officials telling you that you're reading the rule wrong and you won't listen.

You're proving him right.

Not at all. I just explained it in my last post.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

You are a FAN. And you are complaining that an NCAA tournament official, plus the officials in here, do not know how to read and interpret the rule book.

Why are you asking about a rule/play if all you are going to do is continue complaining when you don't get the answers you like?

Don't act like you just popped up and I'm dismissing you. Your track record is documented on Brad's server, especially on the football side.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You are a FAN. And you are complaining that an NCAA tournament official, plus the officials in here, do not know how to read and interpret the rule book.

I never said any such thing. I've said that the "could hit the rim" interpretation and the words "could possibly go in" don't always overlap perfectly. In my opinion the rule as written doesn't support the call. The interpretation you've stated does, but I feel like this particular play is in the middle ground where both statements don't apply.

I actually don't think hbk314 would be a terrible official, he would just struggle with calling things by the rules instead of what he thinks is right.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hbk314

I never said any such thing. I've said that the "could hit the rim" interpretation and the words "could possibly go in" don't always overlap perfectly. In my opinion the rule as written doesn't support the call. The interpretation you've stated does, but I feel like this particular play is in the middle ground where both statements don't apply.

Actually, it does support it. You can't 100% conclude that it can't go it by the observation that is available to the officials therefore it had possibility of going in. You're just wrong.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, it does support it. You can't 100% conclude that it can't go it by the observation that is available to the officials therefore it had possibility of going in. You're just wrong.

It's a matter of opinion.