UCLA THaT WAs Garbage

[stopwow673]

Certainly I didn't think the ball was going in, but the ball was on the path to hit the rim. If I'm correct the ball must be allowed to hit the rim in such a situation or else goal tending is called.

Also, the ref had to make the call in real time without a replay. Perhaps it was an unfortunate situation, but I think it was the correct call.

 

[kramer1]

Certainly I didn't think the ball was going in, but the ball was on the path to hit the rim. If I'm correct the ball must be allowed to hit the rim in such a situation or else goal tending is called.

Also, the ref had to make the call in real time without a replay. Perhaps it was an unfortunate situation, but I think it was the correct call.

Welcome, new member. Good luck with these crazies here!

 

[Codaxx]

True, but at least UCLA would have the ball again with a chance to tie or win the game and SMU doesn't lose on a bad call. There's no perfect scenario in that situation. Bottom line though, the kid essentially put the game in the hands of the refs by doing something that he knew better than to do.

There is no need to to pass the blame on a bad call to a kid trying to grab a rebound and end the game. Kid probably should not have touched the ball, despite the fact it was out of the cyclinder,not on its way to the cyclinder, and it his right to do so, but a bad call is on the refs.

 

[trojanfan12]

There is no need to to pass the blame on a bad call to a kid trying to grab a rebound and end the game. Kid probably should not have touched the ball, despite the fact it was out of the cyclinder,not on its way to the cyclinder, and it his right to do so, but a bad call is on the refs.

First of all, it was the correct call. Second, it's Basketball 101. The kid never should have gone after that ball. If he had simply boxed out as he has been taught to do from pretty much day 1, the ball probably lands in his lap, he's intentionally fouled and goes to the free throw line with a chance to ice the game.

Also, the kid said himself in the news conference after the game that he knew better. Whether you agree with the call of not, the simple fact is that if the kid did as he's been taught, that call doesn't happen.

 

[Codaxx]

First of all, it was the correct call. Second, it's Basketball 101. The kid never should have gone after that ball. If he had simply boxed out as he has been taught to do from pretty much day 1, the ball probably lands in his lap, he's intentionally fouled and goes to the free throw line with a chance to ice the game.

Also, the kid said himself in the news conference after the game that he knew better. Whether you agree with the call of not, the simple fact is that if the kid did as he's been taught, that call doesn't happen.

First of all it was incorrect, as even a Bruin fan conceded and the majority of sports fans, albeit not an overwhelming majority. 2nd you are in the middle of a game. The kid immediately said it was an air ball. That is a judgement call in a split second. Stupid is making fouling in the backcourt with a lead and a minute left. Not quite the same thing here

 

[trojanfan12]

First of all it was incorrect, as even a Bruin fan conceded and the majority of sports fans, albeit not an overwhelming majority. 2nd you are in the middle of a game. The kid immediately said it was an air ball. That is a judgement call in a split second. Stupid is making fouling in the backcourt with a lead and a minute left. Not quite the same thing here

Oh, so when "not an overwhelming majority" of fans and 1 UCLA fan say it wasn't the correct call, that means it wasn't? Quite the stretch there. It's about a 50/50 split on whether it was the correct call or not. You say it wasn't, I say it was. Heck, at the start of today's UCLA/UAB game, one of the commentators said it was the correct call, in the pre-game another one said it wasn't. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the fact is that it's the call that was made.

Also, I never said it was stupid. I said the kid knew better and that the kid himself said he knew better. There was no judgement call to be made at all. Players are taught from day 1 to box out and not touch a ball that close to the rim. If he did as he's taught, the call isn't made and no amount of excuses on the kid's behalf or comparing it to other situations will change that.

I feel bad for the kid because he's a senior and that is the last thing he'll ever do as an SMU basketball player, but he went against what he was taught and learned exactly why he has been taught not to do that.

 

[BeaverShaver]

go Bruins!!

lel

 

[Codaxx]

Oh, so when "not an overwhelming majority" of fans and 1 UCLA fan say it wasn't the correct call, that means it wasn't? Quite the stretch there. It's about a 50/50 split on whether it was the correct call or not. You say it wasn't, I say it was. Heck, at the start of today's UCLA/UAB game, one of the commentators said it was the correct call, in the pre-game another one said it wasn't. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, the fact is that it's the call that was made.

Also, I never said it was stupid. I said the kid knew better and that the kid himself said he knew better. There was no judgement call to be made at all. Players are taught from day 1 to box out and not touch a ball that close to the rim. If he did as he's taught, the call isn't made and no amount of excuses on the kid's behalf or comparing it to other situations will change that.

I feel bad for the kid because he's a senior and that is the last thing he'll ever do as an SMU basketball player, but he went against what he was taught and learned exactly why he has been taught not to do that.

Oddly you say it's a 50/50 split, but say it was the right call with confidence. That makes me laugh. As I said earlier the shot came form the left and the ball was touched to the right of the rim. That's proof to me, but what ever

 

[trojanfan12]

Oddly you say it's a 50/50 split, but say it was the right call with confidence. That makes me laugh. As I said earlier the shot came form the left and the ball was touched to the right of the rim. That's proof to me, but what ever

No more confidence than you used in claiming it was an incorrect call with the same 50/50 split so I hope you saved some of that laughter for yourself.

The ball was touched to the front right side of the rim, it was on it's downward arc and had not yet reached the rim (or rim level) when he touched it. It did not completely clear the rim before it was touched. There has been no angle shown that indicates the ball would not have at least grazed the rim and no angle that is conclusive enough for the call to have been overturned if it were reviewable.

I'll bet if a UCLA player had tipped it in and it was waived off as basket interference, we'd have the same controversy and the same split on whether it was the right call or not.

 

[Codaxx]

No more confidence than you used in claiming it was an incorrect call with the same 50/50 split so I hope you saved some of that laughter for yourself.

The ball was touched to the front right side of the rim, it was on it's downward arc and had not yet reached the rim (or rim level) when he touched it. It did not completely clear the rim before it was touched. There has been no angle shown that indicates the ball would not have at least grazed the rim and no angle that is conclusive enough for the call to have been overturned if it were reviewable.

I'll bet if a UCLA player had tipped it in and it was waived off as basket interference, we'd have the same controversy and the same split on whether it was the right call or not.

That looks like proof to me. If you want to hang on to the "it might have grazed the rim", than bless your heart.

 

[trojanfan12]

That looks like proof to me. If you want to hang on to the "it might have grazed the rim", than bless your heart.

Yep, proof that the ball was on it's downward arc, hadn't reached the rim and was touched on the front right side of the rim before that and was close enough that it may have grazed the rim if not interrupted. Just like I said. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Codaxx]

Yep, proof that the ball was on it's downward arc, hadn't reached the rim and was touched on the front right side of the rim before that and was close enough that it may have grazed the rim if not interrupted. Just like I said. Thanks for proving me right.

Except the fact that even if the ball would have grazed the rim, it would not be goaltending. I think you need to read the rule. Probably why the ref that called the violation was clearly in the worst position to make the call.
SMU was robbed: That goaltend call was 100% wrong | For The Win

 

[trojanfan12]

Except the fact that even if the ball would have grazed the rim, it would not be goaltending. I think you need to read the rule. Probably why the ref that called the violation was clearly in the worst position to make the call.
SMU was robbed: That goaltend call was 100% wrong | For The Win

Like I (and you) said, the opinions are split. What is not debatable is that the kid didn't do as he was taught and it cost his team. I've read the rule and I still believe it was the correct call. Just like the rest of the 50% that agree with me.

Nice try presenting an opinion piece as fact though. Or were you just trying to prove that someone else has the same opinion as you?

 

[Codaxx]

Like I (and you) said, the opinions are split. What is not debatable is that the kid didn't do as he was taught and it cost his team. I've read the rule and I still believe it was the correct call. Just like the rest of the 50% that agree with me.

Nice try presenting an opinion piece as fact though. Or were you just trying to prove that someone else has the same opinion as you?

I thought the pictures were pretty clear in illustrating the poor call. I have been pretty clear in my opinion. The ball was not in the cylinder, nor was it headed toward the cylinder. I think those picture bear that out. I just have not heard why the other side believes it was correct

 

[The Crimson King]

I thought the pictures were pretty clear in illustrating the poor call. I have been pretty clear in my opinion. The ball was not in the cylinder, nor was it headed toward the cylinder. I think those picture bear that out. I just have not heard why the other side believes it was correct

Looks like it may be in the cylinder....need a clear picture from above

 

[trojanfan12]

I thought the pictures were pretty clear in illustrating the poor call. I have been pretty clear in my opinion. The ball was not in the cylinder, nor was it headed toward the cylinder. I think those picture bear that out. I just have not heard why the other side believes it was correct

And I have a different opinion based on the same evidence and have been just as clear in my opinion and I think the pictures bear THAT out.

End of the day, the call was the call whether one agrees with it or not and the evidence isn't nearly as clear as either side of the argument wants it to be.

 

[Codaxx]

Looks like it may be in the cylinder....need a clear picture from above

The blurry picture shows that at best the ball as a chance to graze the rim, as the shot occurred from the right side (as we are looking baseline to half court). The rule states it has to have a possibility to go in. From that view the ball would need to behave like the Kennedy bullet to go in the basket.

 

[The Crimson King]

The blurry picture shows that at best the ball as a chance to graze the rim, as the shot occurred from the right side (as we are looking baseline to half court). The rule states it has to have a possibility to go in. From that view the ball would need to behave like the Kennedy bullet to go in the basket.

The rule states that it has to have the possibility of going in if the ball is outside the cylinder and on the way down. Touching the ball while in the cylinder is basket interference no matter if it's questionable that it goes in. With a clear picture of the overhead we could see if any part of the ball overlaps the rim while being touched.

 

[uncfan103]

Yep, proof that the ball was on it's downward arc, hadn't reached the rim and was touched on the front right side of the rim before that and was close enough that it may have grazed the rim if not interrupted. Just like I said. Thanks for proving me right.

You think that ball had a chance of going in? Lol

 

[The Crimson King]

Read the basket interference rule, not the goaltending rule.

Section 5. Basket Interference Art. 1. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring. Art. 2. Basket interference occurs when a player: RULE 4 / DEFINITIONS 63 a. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket; b. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base; c. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder; or d. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. Art. 3. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, in such action, the player touches or grabs the basket.