UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[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.

[ronny mulkey]

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.

Does an offensive teammate have to leave it alone ,also?

[zm1283]

A "Chance to go in" doesn't mean "It is going to go in".

I thought it was a great call. Maybe if it had no chance of going in, SMU should have left it alone and just rebounded it. Why else would you jump up and bat a three pointer away from the rim?

[Toren]

I thought live it was a great call. Although I did not know who made the call. As I replayed it in my mind, I knew the only official who had an angle was on the shooter and there was lots of bodies by the shooter.

I read someone said the table side trail made the call? I can't confirm that but if that's true...while it was a great call, it was also lucky as can be. It was pure and simply a guess. Sometimes better to be lucky than good. Although in this case the calling official was lucky and good.

[BryanV21]

Look at it from the other side.

If the GT was not called, UCLA could very well have a beef of their own, and we'd be giving the officials a hard time about it. Or some of us may be giving the officials a hard time. And the fact is their beef would be justified. Maybe not right, but justified.

Everybody tends to see things from the victim's angle, but rarely sees things the other way. And doing so can help you see things clearly.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Toren

I thought live it was a great call. Although I did not know who made the call. As I replayed it in my mind, I knew the only official who had an angle was on the shooter and there was lots of bodies by the shooter.

I read someone said the table side trail made the call? I can't confirm that but if that's true...while it was a great call, it was also lucky as can be. It was pure and simply a guess. Sometimes better to be lucky than good. Although in this case the calling official was lucky and good.

Antinio Petty was the trail and made the call. Seems like he would have the best angle, IMO.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Officials sometimes decide a call by who was in the right place and who was in the wrong place. The SMU player should not have been playing the ball above the basket in this situation. When you do that, you now are at the mercy of the official's judgment.

[bballref3966]

"How does the official who was furthest away from the ball make that call?"

Fans and analysts are so funny.

[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.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Antinio Petty was the trail and made the call. Seems like he would have the best angle, IMO.

Table Side correct?

That's not the best angle.

The best angle is opposite the table from where the shot originated from. From the table side, you can only see if the ball is on its downward flight, you could not see if it was over the cylinder.

[MD Longhorn]

I think this horse is dead except for the one non-sheriff continuing to fire bullets into it.

I have a sidebar alluded to earlier but glossed over.

What if, on this exact play, UCLA catches the ball at the same point where the SMU player actually did, and jams it home? BI, or is the "try" suddenly a "pass"?

[todd66]

BI. If it fits the definition of GT then it has to be BI by the offense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

So why they hell does the defender need to hit it?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by todd66

BI. If it fits the definition of GT then it has to be BI by the offense.

No, the definitions are different.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think this horse is dead except for the one non-sheriff continuing to fire bullets into it.

I have a sidebar alluded to earlier but glossed over.

What if, on this exact play, UCLA catches the ball at the same point where the SMU player actually did, and jams it home? BI, or is the "try" suddenly a "pass"?

If you consider it to be in the cylinder, neither team may play the ball. BI is not dependent on the throw being a pass or a try, only on the location of the ball.

However, if the ball is outside of the cylinder, the ruling depends on the rule set. In NCAA, GT is only defined for the defensive team...the offensive team may play the ball until it enters the cylinder. In NFHS, the GT rule applies to both the offense and defense....neither may play the ball on the downward flight.

And, in my opinion, the contact occurred before the ball was in the cylinder and the ball would have been playable by the offensive team up to that point.