UCLA THaT WAs Garbage

[uncfan103]

So if the ball was going to hit the front of the rim but clearly not go in, it's not a goaltend? I don't think that's right, Wikipedia or not. I always thought (b) was "above the rim and has the possibility of entering the basket or making contact with the rim."

I'd love to see the official NCAA rule, but I think you have to pay for it now.

Here's the 2010-2011 Rulebook

"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."

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf Page 74

 

[Runeman]

They showed the overhead view on Sports center and it was several inches off and away from the rim. SMU just played a poor game. Should have made a change guarding Alford. Can't expect to keep doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome. Bad coaching.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Obviously a goaltend.

 

[Smart]

Seems to be the wrong call by the letter of the law, but the rule still seems wrong to me. Do they just assume anything that will touch the rim has a "potential" to go in?

Watching the NCAA officiating dude's explanation. He seems to confirm that they thought it had a "chance to go in" and that they give the benefit of the doubt if it has any chance of touching the rim. To me, I don't think that is defensible. I understand that refs may have had a tough angle, though, and can't fault them for that. From his angle, he couldn't see the left/right angle, only that it was above the rim and they caught it.

It should be reviewable either way. I think it is probably wrong, but not sure if it should be definitively overturned, but I'd love to give a ref a chance.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

Obviously a goaltend.

That doesn't look like a goaltend at all. The ball doesn't even look like it'll hit the rim in that pic...

 

[uncfan103]

Obviously a goaltend.

Lol he didn't shoot from the top of the key

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

That doesn't look like a goaltend at all. The ball doesn't even look like it'll hit the rim in that pic...

doesn't matter if it hit the rim, or where he shot it from. It was on a trajectory towards the goal and it was above the rim.

It's a goaltend.

 

[uncfan103]

Seems to be the wrong call by the letter of the law, but the rule still seems wrong to me. Do they just assume anything that will touch the rim has a "potential" to go in?

Watching the NCAA officiating dude's explanation. He seems to confirm that they thought it had a "chance to go in" and that they give the benefit of the doubt if it has any chance of touching the rim. To me, I don't think that is defensible. I understand that refs may have had a tough angle, though, and can't fault them for that. From his angle, he couldn't see the left/right angle, only that it was above the rim and they caught it.

It should be reviewable either way. I think it is probably wrong, but not sure if it should be definitively overturned, but I'd love to give a ref a chance.

He was just trying to defend the officials, I think. Nobody else in the studio thought it had a chance.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

doesn't matter if it hit the rim, or where he shot it from. It was on a trajectory towards the goal and it was above the rim.

It's a goaltend.

It needs a possibility of going into the basket. That had no possibility of going in. It had a bigger chance of missing the entire basket.

 

[uncfan103]

doesn't matter if it hit the rim, or where he shot it from. It was on a trajectory towards the goal and it was above the rim.

It's a goaltend.

You thought that ball had a chance of going in? There was literally a zero percent chance of that, IMO. It was above the rim, that's the only criteria that it fits.

 

[dirtboy068]

terrible CALL. the side line replay CLEARLY SHOWS ITS AN AIR BALL. goal tending should not of applied.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

You thought that ball had a chance of going in? There was literally a zero percent chance of that, IMO. It was above the rim, that's the only criteria that it fits.

Doesn't matter if it was going in. It was headed towards the goal. It was above the rim.

Don't touch the ball on it's way down. simple. Goaltend.

 

[dirtboy068]

doesn't matter if it hit the rim, or where he shot it from. It was on a trajectory towards the goal and it was above the rim.

It's a goaltend.

not true. it was moving AWAY from the rim. AIR BALL

 

[uncfan103]

Doesn't matter if it was going in. It was headed towards the goal. It was above the rim.

Don't touch the ball on it's way down. simple. Goaltend.

I understand if you don't want to take my word for it. But...I quoted the rulebook and you're still trying to convince me that it doesn't matter if it's going in?

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

Man, I can't stand that lead officials voice. He seems like he's just trying to defend the officials in it though.

 

[dirtboy068]

Doesn't matter if it was going in. It was headed towards the goal. It was above the rim.

Don't touch the ball on it's way down. simple. Goaltend.

NOT TRUE. IT WAS NOT ABOVE THE RIM

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

NOT TRUE. IT WAS NOT ABOVE THE RIM

I guess you didn't see the picture I posted above of him touching the ball above the rim.

 

[dirtboy068]

I guess you didn't see the picture I posted above of him touching the ball above the rim.

NOPE. the the side picture is giving you the illusion it might be a hair over the rim. if you watch the replay its NEVER even close to being over the rim. he touches it to move the BALL TO THAT POSITION AFTER THE AIR BALL

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I understand if you don't want to take my word for it. But...I quoted the rulebook and you're still trying to convince me that it doesn't matter if it's going in?

If it has an opportunity to hit the rim, it has a chance to go in.

If you don't want a goaltending call, don't touch the goddamn ball when it is above the goddamn rim. It isn't that hard.

 

[The Crimson King]

not that it matters, but UCLA would have scored on the put back and gone to OT