UCLA THaT WAs Garbage

[uncfan103]

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.

They called goaltending, not basket interference. The head official that was on the CBS or whatever channel the game was on post-game even said it was not basket interference because the ball wasn't in the cyclinder. He said it was called goaltending and that basket interference would've been incorrect. So...maybe he was just saying that but I'm not sure why he'd say that if it wasn't true.

 

[Codaxx]

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.

There is no chance of that ball going in. If you grab the ball on a corner shot 3 feet above the basket it is not goaltending. That is a fact. You are trying to argue that perhaps a half of an inch is over the cylinder (and that 1/2 inch is not a certainty). You are missing the entire intent of the rule and trying to argue that a small part of the definition should override the founding principle

 

[The Crimson King]

They called goaltending, not basket interference. The head official that was on the CBS or whatever channel the game was on post-game even said it was not basket interference because the ball wasn't in the cyclinder. He said it was called goaltending and that basket interference would've been incorrect. So...maybe he was just saying that but I'm not sure why he'd say that if it wasn't true.

Either way, if that ball is overlapping the rim, it counts

 

[Codaxx]

no. That is not the case. You are off on a tangent that is not even applicable.


Ps: how the hell do you edit post on this new formet

 

[The Crimson King]

There is no chance of that ball going in. If you grab the ball on a corner shot 3 feet above the basket it is not goaltending. That is a fact. You are trying to argue that perhaps a half of an inch is over the cylinder (and that 1/2 inch is not a certainty). You are missing the entire intent of the rule and trying to argue that a small part of the definition should override the founding principle

no. That is not the case. You are off on a tangent that is not even applicable.


Ps: how the hell do you edit post on this new formet

Yes it is. Maybe they need to change the rule.

Bottom left of the post is a little pencil

 

[uncfan103]

Either way, if that ball is overlapping the rim, it counts

Nope. It doesn't matter about the rim. It has to have a possibility of going in.

 

[The Crimson King]

Nope. It doesn't matter about the rim. It has to have a possibility of going in.

Not if it's in the cylinder

 

[uncfan103]

Not if it's in the cylinder

Do you think the goaltend call was correct or are you arguing that the ball is in the cylinder and should not count? Can't imagine there could be too many other people that think the ball is in the cylinder. But, maybe I'm crazy.

 

[Codaxx]

Not if it's in the cylinder

No. .If that wasthe interpretation that there would be a 70% decline in alley oop passes

 

[The Crimson King]

Do you think the goaltend call was correct or are you arguing that the ball is in the cylinder and should not count? Can't imagine there could be too many other people that think the ball is in the cylinder. But, maybe I'm crazy.

I think after reading the rules that goaltending was the wrong call. But yeah, I think the ball was in the cylinder when he touched it.....doesn't matter how many inches. I actually thought the ball hit the rim watching it from above. So maybe he made the wrong call but the end result was correct. The basket should have counted

 

[trojanfan12]

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

Please show me where I said I thought it had a chance to go in. I'll wait.

 

[Codaxx]

Please show me where I said I thought it had a chance to go in. I'll wait.

Your argument a implies that is does. If it doesn't have chance to go in it is not goaltending

 

[uncfan103]

Please show me where I said I thought it had a chance to go in. I'll wait.

I put a question mark on the end of it. I wasn't sure what you thought. But you were trying to make an argument that it was goaltending, so I asked if you honestly thought there was a possibility of it going in.

 

[trojanfan12]

Your argument a implies that is does. If it doesn't have chance to go in it is not goaltending

No, my argument implies nothing of the sort. You're wasting your time too. I'm not going to agree with you no matter how many times you post that it wasn't goaltending.

 

[Codaxx]

No, my argument implies nothing of the sort. You're wasting your time too. I'm not going to agree with you no matter how many times you post that it wasn't goaltending.

I can not force you to be logical. Goal tending can only happen if the ball has a possibility of going in. If you are saying that you don't believe it could have gone in, than you are contradicting yourself. Your argument seems to be with your opposing thoughts, not mr

 

[trojanfan12]

I put a question mark on the end of it. I wasn't sure what you thought. But you were trying to make an argument that it was goaltending, so I asked if you honestly thought there was a possibility of it going in.

Actually, you said "You think that ball had a chance of going in? Lol" The Lol kind of changes the context.

 

[trojanfan12]

I can not force you to be logical. Goal tending can only happen if the ball has a possibility of going in. If you are saying that you don't believe it could have gone in, than you are contradicting yourself. Your argument seems to be with your opposing thoughts, not mr

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.

 

[uncfan103]

Actually, you said "You think that ball had a chance of going in? Lol" The Lol kind of changes the context.

Well, when you say it might have graved the rim and also argue goaltending it confuses me. I don't see how you think it has the possibility of going in if you think it might graze the rim. And I was assuming you thought it could go in because you argued a goaltend. So...I believed you thought it was going in but I couldn't follow along, so I asked.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Sweet 16!!!

 

[uncfan103]

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.

I think he is just trying to get you to read the rule. Has nothing to do with disagreeing. It's not an opinion to say the ball has to have the possibility of going in for it to be goaltending.