UCLA vs. SMU (Video)
 

We're probably gonna need video of the goaltending call on UCLA's go-ahead three with 10 seconds left. Probably. :D

Looking at the CBS replays it looked like an excellent goal-tending call.man what a wacky morning of basketball

They can't review that? That did not appear to be a good call. That shot had absolutely no chance of going in.

IMO it was a great call when looking at it at full speed. and from the angle the calling official had

I guess we have to define what "has the possibility of entering the basket" means. Personally I think the ball would have hit the rim and bounced off, does that mean that the ball did or did not have a chance to enter the basket?

The call MAY have been TECHNICALLY correct.

It is going to be hard to have consistency on that call.

One more thing that will be reviewable in the final 2 minutes next year.

I'd bet good money this call will not be reviewable at any time in the near future.

"Art. 3. Goaltending.
a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a fieldgoal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exceptions: Rule 10-4.1.i)
1. The ball is on its downward flight; and
2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder."

More like, what does "while in flight" mean. I think that means until the try ends, and the try had not ended. The ball probably would have grazed the front of the rim and fallen or maybe bounced back toward the direction it came from. Would it probably have entered the basket? No. But could it possibly have? Yes. Gutsy call, but I think it was the correct call.

Good idea, but how do you review it if it's not called on the floor? Treat it as a correctable error? I guess that would be the way to go. You're right, this will probably now be reviewable in the future by coach request in the same way a FF1/2 can be reviewable even if not initially called on the floor.

While in flight means until it is either 1) made, 2) missed, or 3) touches rim. If the ball hits rim and is coming off and no longer in the cylinder, goaltending no longer applies. So I would say GT never applies after the ball has hit the rim, only BI can apply. Thus, the focus really is on what "possibility of entering the basket" means.

Adams was just on. Said why goaltending can be supported there.

Announcers within five seconds after switching from Adams said how horrible of a call that was.

Adams shouldn't be so polite next time they have him on.

Charles Barkley defended the call.

I thought it was a great call too. I also think Adams should have been more "Adams"ment that it was a good GT. Does anyone know if He has suffered a stroke in the past. He has at least 2 of the four symptoms, ie slurred speech and facial drooping.

Are you having a stroke?

Thread over folks, we can all go home. Charles said it was a good call. :D

"Chance to go in" is problematic.

I also have a small problem with the T calling that from his position on the floor. If there's such a thing as being straightlined on a goaltending call, he was it.

C had the best look, though he also had the shooter, etc....

Really tough call all the way around. I can be swayed either way.

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but couldn't it be BI even if the ball doesn't seem to have a chance to go in. It looks from the overhead like the ball is just barely in the cylinder by a fraction. Everyone seems to be assuming the call was GT, but would BI be defensible in this circumstance?

It's a judgment call, it will never be reviewable.

Touché ;)

That ball had no possibility of going in. An unfortunate bailout call. It appeared to be an airball and it's debatable whether it was even still above the cylinder when he touched it. Horrible way for a game to essentially end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp2x4TiYTjY

Video link ^^^ I don't know if I can embed or how.

I guess for me it would depend on how he supported it. I might be able to understand making the call live from an official's angle, but to back the call based on the available replays is just silly. It was awful.

That sums up my thoughts perfectly. Tough spot live, and I feel for the crew, but Adams' appearance was embarrassing. It was nice that he backed his guys, but to pretend it had a chance of going in was absurd.

I also concur with those who feel the ball was already below ring level.

Anyone else notice the C (who had the exact angle to show the airball wide) immediately look to the table and give a hand signal as if to demonstrate "a few inches short," a la football officials signaling being short of a first down?

That's when I thought they were going to get together to get the call right. Maybe his signal meant something else I'm unaware of, because they obviously didn't get together to discuss GT and they didn't get it right.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3cSpJa53vto" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Excellent call. The defender can't be so dumb as the play a ball coming down at the rim.

It didn't have a high chance of going in but I've seem some unlikely bounces over the years. Unless it is going to completely miss the rim, the defender has to leave it alone.

I don't see anything showing it hitting the rim or that the defender hit it before it was below the rim. He was simply going for the rebound on an absolutely awful shot, an airball, and was the victim of what will probably be the worst call of the tournament.

You can honestly look at the video and say that was going to be an airball had the defender not touched it? Looks clear to me it was going to hit the rim.

I concur that Adam's defended the call because he has to, there was no chance of the ball going in, he knew that, and he was wishy-washy on it.

The mechanics somewhat problematic...table side T did not have the angle to make this call. C had shooter and angle. Replay has both.

GET IT RIGHT! Right?

Why can't we let the official with the call take a look and change his mind.

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.

I agree with you watching it live and in the video APG posted, but later on there was a side angle view showed by the network that was much more definitive. Hand hit the ball above the rim level on the way down. Great call.

What do you mean by this statement? That play was not reviewable. Are you saying it should be?

I'm one to be critical of refs when it is called for, but here I have to say it was a good call. Very tough one for SMU. I seriously doubt the ball had any chance of going in. But the defender should have left it alone.
I agree with Camron

I'm saying I have yet to see a replay after the fact that justifies it. I can see how it would be tough real-time.

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.

hbk isn't an official

No surprising. I'm just waiting for someone to request that you post full game film from every tournament game with an excel spreadsheet of every play, graded by you as correct or incorrect.

I think video is an excellent tool and we all are in your debt for your work. but the requests seem to become less about learning and more about complaining around this time each year.

He shows up to rip officials and entertain us.

Anyone have any insight as to what the C might've been indicating by his hands-apart "this many inches" signal right after the whistle blew?

Just like an NFL official demonstrating how short a team is of a first down after a measurement.

He did it right away and walked toward the table. I assumed he was saying "it was 6 inches wide of the hoop" and I anticipated a review, but that was before I knew this call is not reviewable.

Perhaps it was some way of saying, "I have a 3. Let's go to the monitor to confirm that" (which they did).

That's what I think it is. When they show the officials going to the monitor the official does the signal again to the scorer showing that he had a three.

Signaling he had a three...no need to go w/a full touchdown signal in this instance.

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.

Well that would be an interpretation beyond the text in the rule.

No it isn't.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Fans and analysts are so funny.

Please just stop. You convey your extreme ignorance every time you post.

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.

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"?

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

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

No, the definitions are different.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

Actually Happened In My Game
 

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 :eek: because (according to him) his angle justified his call at the time. :rolleyes:

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.:D

Too bad we can't officiate games by still shots and replays.

The replays support the call.

Shot in downward path (CHECK)
Shot above rim (CHECK)
Shot have a chance to go in (can't say for certainty yes or no so CHECK)

All conditions met. Goaltending. No matter how many times you keep saying the same thing over and over again it won't make it true. Just like your lack of knowledge of rules and application of rules.

You are a fanboy and are acting like that. Until someone says what you want to hear you wont hear anything except that you know it all and are right.

We don't have the luxury of making calls based on what may be the best expected outcome.

From US Today, Yankcik Moriera's take on the play:

"It's all my fault," the SMU center said. "I should have let the ball hit the rim. I take the blame on myself. I shouldn't have made that mistake. As a senior" — his voice cracked— "you can't make those mistakes at the end of the game."

gotta respect the maturity

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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. :p

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.

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.

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. :confused:

Fans and announcers think their opinions counts JUST AS MUCH.

Funny how many people tend to lean on "opinion" when the facts just don't support their argument. Guess that's why opinions are like ___holes, and facts are facts. I'm also glad that adjudication of rules are left to opinions. Your team lost. They lost last year, and the year before. They will probably lost next year and the year after that. In fact they will lose in the tournament more often than they win.

You can keep blaming it on the officiating.

So, if it's a matter of opinion what is the purpose of your argument? Are you trying to convince others to change their minds?

I don't care who wins most games in the tournament. I'd just like to see games decided by the players on the floor and not have terrible plays bailed out unnecessarily.

If play continues, UCLA likely ties it and SMU has last shot.

This game was decided by the player that jumped up and touched a ball heading towards the basket. The officials just told everyone what he did.

The horse is dead.