UCLA THaT WAs Garbage

[trojanfan12]

I think he is just trying to get you to read the rule. Has nothing to do with disagreeing.

I've read the rule. I think it was goaltending.

 

[Codaxx]

Yes, because after all, any opinion that differs from yours HAS to be illogical. I can't force you to not be full of yourself. Clearly proven by how full of yourself you are.

End of the day, we disagree. Grow up and move on. All of your crying on a message board isn't going to change the call or my mind.

Not full of myself. I am simply pointing out that the rule requires the shot have a possibility of going in for there to be a violation. You can get pissy about that. I do like how I am being childish and are telling me to grow up stop crying. I hope you can see the irony in that

 

[uncfan103]

I've read the rule. I think it was goaltending.

Did you miss the part that stated the ball had to have the possibility of going in?


Or... did you think it had the possibility of going in? <-- Which is where my original question came from. Do you believe it had the possibility of going in? Based on your response to my question I don't think you did. So, I don't follow along with your argument about it being goaltending.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not full of myself. I am simply pointing out that the rule requires the shot have a possibility of going in for there to be a violation. You can get pissy about that. I do like how I am being childish and are telling me to grow up stop crying. I hope you can see the irony in that

Very full of yourself. You've already agreed that there's about a 50/50 split on whether it was goaltending or not, then you refer to a differing opinion as illogical because it disagrees with yours.

Pretty much textbook full of yourself.

And you do need to grow up and quit crying about it. You disagree with the call, others don't. Move on with your life.

 

[trojanfan12]

Did you miss the part that stated the ball had to have the possibility of going in?


Or... did you think it had the possibility of going in? <-- Which is where my original question came from. Do you believe it had the possibility of going in? Based on your response to my question I don't think you did. So, I don't follow along with your argument about it being goaltending.

I don't interpret the rule that way and apparently, neither did the refs.

 

[uncfan103]

I don't interpret the rule that way and apparently, neither did the refs.

It's not really an "interpretation". It's black and white. You would know if you read it.

Also, the head official said that "it had the possibility of going in" which is why it was called goaltending. But, I believe he was just saying that to defend the officials. Do you believe the ball had a possibility of going in OR do you not think it was goaltending? It's one or the other.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's not really an "interpretation". It's black and white. You would know if you read it.

Also, the head official said that "it had the possibility of going in" which is why it was called goaltending. But, I believe he was just saying that to defend the officials. Do you believe the ball had a possibility of going in OR do you not think it was goaltending? It's one or the other.

Actually, it is an interpretation. I see it as a chance to go in being one of about 3 different things that can result in a goaltending call. You read it as the overall determining factor. That's interpretation.

 

[uncfan103]

Direct quote:

"Art. 1.
Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches
the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
Exceptions: Rules 10-3.6; 10-6.1.i
a. The ball is in its downward flight; and
b. The entire 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."

So, you're saying my interpretation is wrong? It says "each of the following must be met" and then one of the following is that it "has to have the possibility of going in". So, I don't see it as an interpretation as much as it is a black and white rule. The ball isn't going in and isn't touching the cylinder.

 

[trojanfan12]

Direct quote:

"Art. 1.
Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches
the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
Exceptions: Rules 10-3.6; 10-6.1.i
a. The ball is in its downward flight; and
b. The entire 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."

So, you're saying my interpretation is wrong? It says "each of the following must be met" and then one of the following is that it "has to have the possibility of going in". So, I don't see it as an interpretation as much as it is a black and white rule. The ball isn't going in and isn't touching the cylinder.

Yes, and so are the refs.

 

[uncfan103]

Yes, and so are the refs.

I mean you can keep saying that. I already told you what the refs said but you didn't want to hear it.

If you want to explain how the rule could possibly mean anything other than what it says you can do that, I'm all ears.

 

[trojanfan12]

I mean you can keep saying that. I already told you what the refs said but you didn't want to hear it.

Seriously?!? You said:

Also, the head official said that "it had the possibility of going in" which is why it was called goaltending. But, I believe he was just saying that to defend the officials.

So, you gave the head officials opinion and then discounted it with your own opinion and tried to pass that off as somehow making your opinion a fact.

 

[Codaxx]

Very full of yourself. You've already agreed that there's about a 50/50 split on whether it was goaltending or not, then you refer to a differing opinion as illogical because it disagrees with yours.

Pretty much textbook full of yourself.

And you do need to grow up and quit crying about it. You disagree with the call, others don't. Move on with your life.

I actually said the "majority of sports fans thought it was a bad call, albeit a small majority". I am saying your stance that the ball had no chance of going in and it was goaltending is illogical. If you thought the shot had a chance to go in and it was the right call, than that is a logical position. You are arguing it is not goaltending, but providing evidence that it

 

[Codaxx]

I actually said the "majority of sports fans thought it was a bad call, albeit a small majority". I am saying your stance that the ball had no chance of going in and it was goaltending is illogical. If you thought the shot had a chance to go in and it was the right call, than that is a logical position. You are arguing it is not goaltending, but providing evidence that it

But providing evidence that it is not goaltending. Your position just does not make sense.

 

[trojanfan12]

But providing evidence that it is not goaltending. Your position just does not make sense.

You're right. The post you quoted made no sense at all. Glad we can agree.

 

[uncfan103]

Seriously?!? You said:



So, you gave the head officials opinion and then discounted it with your own opinion and tried to pass that off as somehow making your opinion a fact.

He said it was goaltending because it had the possibility of going in. You're saying it didn't have the possibility of going in. So, I don't follow your logic. You can try to make the argument it was goaltending but so far you keep saying things that aren't related to the rule. You keep mentioning something I said instead of explaining how "The entire 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" could be interpreted as the entire is ball is above the level of the ring OR has the possibility of going in OR is not touching the cylinder"

 

[uncfan103]

You're right. The post you quoted made no sense at all. Glad we can agree.

I'll translate for you. He said your post implies that the ball had no chance of going in, yet was still a goaltending. which, because of the rule, he says is an illogical argument.

And he's saying a logical argument would be that the ball had a possibility of going in.

 

[trojanfan12]

He said it was goaltending because it had the possibility of going in. You're saying it didn't have the possibility of going in. So, I don't follow your logic. You can try to make the argument it was goaltending but so far you keep saying things that aren't related to the rule. You keep mentioning something I said instead of explaining how "The entire 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" could be interpreted as the entire is ball is above the level of the ring OR has the possibility of going in OR is not touching the cylinder"

Never said if I thought it had a chance of going in or not. I said that I think it was goaltending and that I interpret the rule differently. You quoted the head refs opinion, then refuted it with your own opinion and pretended that made your opinion a fact.

You're not going to change my mind. But hey, I'm smoking a bowl of Nasty Lady, have a decent buzz going and can do this as long as you want.

It's you're time, far be it from me to tell you how to waste it.

 

[Codaxx]

You're right. The post you quoted made no sense at all. Glad we can agree.

I had to put the 2 posts together. No idea how to edit on the new format. UNC put them together quite succinctly for you though

 

[trojanfan12]

I'll translate for you. He said your post implies that the ball had no chance of going in, yet was still a goaltending. which, because of the rule, he says is an illogical argument.

And he's saying a logical argument would be that the ball had a possibility of going in.

Gee thanks. What would I ever do without my personal interpreter? Do you accept vcash for your services?

 

[trojanfan12]

I had to put the 2 posts together. No idea how to edit on the new format. UNC put them together quite succinctly for you though

Down in the lower left hand corner under your avi, you should see a little pencil. That's the edit button. A little screen will pop up where you can make your changes. Then hit save changes.