UCLA vs. SMU (Video)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Wouldn't the POI be rebounding action which would go to the arrow? Or are you saying the guy who "goaltended" ended up with possession?

Depends on where the ball was when the whistle blew.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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

Maybe he was watching the rebounder and not the rim and saw the rebound catch the ball at a point not above the rim?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Wouldn't the POI be rebounding action which would go to the arrow? Or are you saying the guy who "goaltended" ended up with possession?

If the defender caught the ball, no. It would have been in possession when the whistle sounded. If the defender merely tapped the ball and the whistle blew, then yes, POI would lead to using the arrow.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by hbk314

..Horrible call with the benefit of replay.

How about one day you put on some stripes and make a few calls without the benefit of replay?

[Raymond]

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.

There really is nothing to learn from this play, unless someone wants to debate whether the Trail or Center should have made the call. Other than that, nothing.

[jpgc99]

My point - for this thread and many others that pop up in March - is that video can be extremely helpful for all of us to learn from. This video, and other requests I've seen posted already this year, do not generate discussion on rules or mechanics. It seems that some people only want to bash the tournament officials and only request clips of plays they deem are called incorrectly.

[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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Camron,

So, a 50 ft. SHOT can be intercepted 3 ft. from the basket by the offense and rammed home? But, the defense has to just back off? Seems a little unfair offense over defense. Like the NFHS rule better.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

So, a 50 ft. SHOT can be intercepted 3 ft. from the basket by the offense and rammed home? But, the defense has to just back off? Seems a little unfair offense over defense. Like the NFHS rule better.

How is it unfair? The rule applies to all teams.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

So, a 50 ft. SHOT can be intercepted 3 ft. from the basket by the offense and rammed home? But, the defense has to just back off? Seems a little unfair offense over defense. Like the NFHS rule better.

Yes, if the official thinks it has a chance to go in. However, if it is falling well short of the rim, then the try is already over, by definition (ends when...."when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful"), and anyone can play it. It is only when the ball is on a trajectory to hit the rim (or go in) where the offense can play it while the defense can't.

[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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by hbk314

It's a matter of opinion.

Hmm. On one side we have a lone voice of a non-referee crying in the wilderness, and on the other side we have a gazillion years of refereeing experience. Darn, I just don't know who to believe.