UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

Raymond

Toren wrote
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

hbk314 wrote
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

BadNewsRef wrote
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

hbk314 wrote
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

todd66 wrote
BI. If it fits the definition of GT then it has to be BI by the offense.

No, the definitions are different.

Camron Rust

MD Longhorn wrote
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.

bballref3966

todd66 wrote
BI. If it fits the definition of GT then it has to be BI by the offense.

GT and BI are not the same thing. BI restrictions are only in effect when the ball is on or within the basket, or in the cylinder.

ballgame99

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

Because it was such a horrible shot and had no chance to go in, he was rebounding it.

hbk314

BadNewsRef wrote
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.

hbk314

Welpe wrote
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.

[deleted]

BryanV21 wrote
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.

I actually think that if nothing had been called there would not have been any outcry that it was goaltending.

MD Longhorn wrote
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"?

No BI because the ball was not in the cylinder. It's pretty obvious it was a try, if it was tipped in or jammed in then I guess you could call it a "pass".

Camron Rust

hbk314 wrote
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

Camron Rust wrote
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.

Camron Rust

hbk314 wrote
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

Camron Rust wrote
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.😃

« Previous Page Next Page »