Ball was in cylinder

[TomTraubertsBlues]

Tipton has a screenshot of Waters apparently stepping out of bounds on the way up the court. Kind of blurry though. Was he out?

Never mind, that was the table, not the out of bounds area.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Ohh, Lord, this is really getting embarrassing. No one is saying they are dependent on the other. One could have easily occurred without the other. No argument there. The ignorance and hypocrisy is you're completely over looking one in favor of complaining over the one that fits your argument that we were somehow screwed. That is hypocrisy plain and simple. If it had been called fair, the first one would have been goal-tending and points to LSU.

Can you please point out where anyone indicated they were dependent on each other or how you formulated that conclusion? I am very interested to hear this.

You are making a huge assumption to get to your conclusion. This thread is about the offensive interference no-call. If you want to talk about the defensive goal tending no-call, then why don't you start a thread about it? I suspect, since the rule has already been posted on defensive goal tending, that you won't like the comments on that topic anymore than you like the comments on this one. The point is, reaching a conclusion about either play doesn't require a discussion of the other. Therefore, it is not hypocrisy for anyone to want to discuss one play without sidetracking that discussion with talk about the other play. A conclusion can be reached on both plays independent of each other. You responded to a discussion about offensive interference with a discussion about a separate play based on your assumption of hypocrisy. In my opinion, that's nothing more than a straw man to avoid your inability to show how 100% of basketball had cleared the cylinder when it was touched by the LSU player. If you can produce an image that shows that, I would love to see it.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

You are making a huge assumption to get to your conclusion. This thread is about the offensive interference no-call. If you want to talk about the defensive goal tending no-call, then why don't you start a thread about it? I suspect, since the rule has already been posted on defensive goal tending, that you won't like the comments on that topic anymore than you like the comments on this one. The point is, reaching a conclusion about either play doesn't require a discussion of the other. Therefore, it is not hypocrisy for anyone to want to discuss one play without sidetracking that discussion with talk about the other play. A conclusion can be reached on both plays independent of each other. You responded to a discussion about offensive interference with a discussion about a separate play based on your assumption of hypocrisy. In my opinion, that's nothing more than a straw man to avoid your inability to show how 100% of basketball had cleared the cylinder when it was touched by the LSU player. If you can produce an image that shows that, I would love to see it.

:joy: You've really gotta look up what a strawman argument actually is. It is beyond amusing watching you try to correlate it here. You are utilizing the straw man and red herring for sure trying to shift the argument and inbed statements or ideas that have never been made or correlated.

Claiming 1 goal tending to benefit your narrative, while totally ignoring the other is the definition of hypocrisy. That is the reason you want to ignore it so bad. It destroys your argument.

By rule, it the first was goal tending. EJ had his hand in the net knock the rim and pulling the net. That is goal tending. Tapping a ball off the rim outside of the cylinder is not. How is that an assumption?

There have already been several posted. I can't make you accept reality. You have to do that on your own. Kind of like leading a horse to water but can't make them drink.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

:joy: You've really gotta look up what a straw man argument actually is. It is beyond amusing watching you try to correlate it here. You are utilizing the straw man and red herring for sure trying to shift the argument and inbed statements or ideas that have never been made or correlated.

Claiming 1 goal tending to benefit your narrative, while totally ignoring the other is the definition of hypocrisy. That is the reason you want to ignore it so bad. It destroys your argument.

By rule, it the first was goal tending. EJ had his hand in the net knock the rim and pulling the net. That is goal tending. Tapping a ball off the rim outside of the cylinder is not. How is that an assumption?

There have already been several posted. I can't make you accept reality. You have to do that on your own. Kind of like leading a horse to water but can't make them drink.

How am I ignoring the defensive play?

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

How am I ignoring the defensive play?

Well, for starters you want to totally ignore it happened. Anytime it's brought up you call it deflecting and improperly refer to it as a "strawman argument"

You only want to harp on the offensive put back as goal tending because it help promote UK as a victim. When in reality, we should have been called for a goal tending call on the initial shot. You don't just get to overlook 1 in favor of the 2nd. That is not how it works in reality. No one is saying the first caused the 2nd or without the first we never have the 2nd, but you can't claim one was bad call that altered the outcome, when clearly had it been called the other way, the first call being missed would have then altered the outcome.

I hate losing as much as the next person, but you can't distort reality to rationalize it. Then we look no better than UL.

 

[flacat22]

you are actually wrong. that was a good basket on both counts. period. imagine if the exact play happened and it was us on the O glass. game should have never been this close. this is what happens.

Sticking your hand through the basket while a shot is in the air is goal-tending. And I am not sure how you can say he isn't having an impact on the rim as his damn wrist is through the net and pressed against it. You think he is so arrow dynamic and skilled that he just pulls his arms down without ever touching the net or the rim? [eyeroll]

arrow dynamic [roll][roll]

 

[skcatfan]

Everyone should just ignore the idiot troll in this thread.

 

[TomTraubertsBlues]

arrow dynamic [roll][roll]

He's not arrow dynamic, but he is a pre-madonna.

 

[Crankdatmustard_rivals66299]

No it wasn't

You not knowing the rules. Shocking.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Well, for starters you want to totally ignore it happened. Anytime it's brought up you call it deflecting and improperly refer to it as a "strawman argument"

You only want to harp on the offensive put back as goal tending because it help promote UK as a victim. When in reality, we should have been called for a goal tending call on the initial shot. You don't just get to overlook 1 in favor of the 2nd. That is not how it works in reality. No one is saying the first caused the 2nd or without the first we never have the 2nd, but you can't claim one was bad call that altered the outcome, when clearly had it been called the other way, the first call being missed would have then altered the outcome.

I hate losing as much as the next person, but you can't distort reality to rationalize it. Then we look no better than UL.

You love to make assumptions about other people don't you. You have no idea what my thoughts are on the defensive no-call since I have not discussed it.

You do deflect. The answer to show me an image where 100% of the basketball is outside the cylinder is not a picture of the play that happened before it. I guess your thought process is just more "arrow dynamic" than the rest of us.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

You love to make assumptions about other people don't you. You have no idea what my thoughts are on the defensive no-call since I have not discussed it.

You do deflect. The answer to show me an image where 100% of the basketball is outside the cylinder is not a picture of the play that happened before it. I guess your thought process is just more "arrow dynamic" than the rest of us.

Lol, so you are saying that you admit the first call was blown then? Then why are you upset that the 2nd on was blown? That logically makes no sense.

How did I deflect? I said there were countless others posted in the thread (and other) already. I never claimed it was the ones I posted. The ball is out of the cylinder and off the rim. It's fair game. We should have blocked out and rebounded it. We were too worried about sending 2 bigs to commit goal tending blocking an off balance shot to worry about boxing out and rebounding.

I don't know about "everybody" since I don't like to make the assumptions that you obviously do, but definitely more so than you. [winking]

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Lol, so you are saying that you admit the first call was blown then? Then why are you upset that the 2nd on was blown? That logically makes no sense.

How did I deflect? I said there were countless others posted in the thread (and other) already. I never claimed it was the ones I posted. The ball is out of the cylinder and off the rim. It's fair game. We should have blocked out and rebounded it. We were too worried about sending 2 bigs to commit goal tending blocking an off balance shot to worry about boxing out and rebounding.

I don't know about "everybody" since I don't like to make the assumptions that you obviously do, but definitely more so than you. [winking]

Show us the image where 100% of the ball has cleared the cylinder. I haven't seen one posted. Every angle I have seen shows a portion of the ball above and inside the area of the cylinder. You keep saying it isn't, yet there is no such image posted in this thread. Please enlighten us with an image.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

Show us the image where 100% of the ball has cleared the cylinder. I haven't seen one posted. Every angle I have seen shows a portion of the ball above and inside the area of the cylinder. You keep saying it isn't, yet there is no such image posted in this thread. Please enlighten us with an image.

No, that is just want you want to see to justify it. Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

No, that is just want you want to see to justify it. Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I didn't think so, lol.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

I didn't think so, lol.

So just ignoring it?

 

[UKCAT5FAN]

You are making a huge assumption to get to your conclusion. This thread is about the offensive interference no-call. If you want to talk about the defensive goal tending no-call, then why don't you start a thread about it? I suspect, since the rule has already been posted on defensive goal tending, that you won't like the comments on that topic anymore than you like the comments on this one. The point is, reaching a conclusion about either play doesn't require a discussion of the other. Therefore, it is not hypocrisy for anyone to want to discuss one play without sidetracking that discussion with talk about the other play. A conclusion can be reached on both plays independent of each other. You responded to a discussion about offensive interference with a discussion about a separate play based on your assumption of hypocrisy. In my opinion, that's nothing more than a straw man to avoid your inability to show how 100% of basketball had cleared the cylinder when it was touched by the LSU player. If you can produce an image that shows that, I would love to see it.

He cant produce any evidence. Ive asked him and he just beats around the bush. He is just being stubborn and ignorant.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

No, that is just want you want to see to justify it. Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I didn't think so, lol.

He cant produce any evidence. Ive asked him and he just beats around the bush. He is just being stubborn and ignorant.

Huh?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So just ignoring it?

Ignoring what? You can either produce an image or you can't.

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

Ignoring what? You can either produce an image or you can't.

No, that is just want you want to see to justify it. Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[UKCAT5FAN]

No, that is just want you want to see to justify it. Again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Huh?

Exactly!! Thats not evidence to your point bro. Its the exact opposite. Im done arguing with you. Get this through your skull......I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS THE REASON WE LOST but it doesnt mean that the call wasnt missed. Im done with you.

 

[alle2_rivals]

Cal's not going to throw the players under the bus at this point. Fact it was it good. We blew it in the end. Technically, as someone pointed out above, EJ mongtgomery had his hand in the basket when somone from LSU shot before the putback.

Goal tending by EJ

 

[TheBigBluebowski]

Ignoring what? You can either produce an image or you can't.

I can't make you look at the picture or accept it. But, it was posted as you requested. [winking]

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Huh?

If you draw a line straight up from the cylinder to the ceiling, the line will cut right through the basketball, meaning a portion of the ball is still in the cylinder. That picture proves what everyone else has been saying. It does not prove your version of the play. If the ball was out of the cylinder, a line drown straight up from the cylinder to the ceiling would not go through any part of the ball.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Again, I can't make you see facts. All I can do i present the evidence and loet you spin however you see necessary.

In reality, the ball is off the rim and out of the cylinder. Facts are facts man Sorry. We'll get them next time.

So are you saying a line perpendicular to the rim up to the ceiling would not cut through the ball in that picture?

 

[502 Wildcat]

Again, I can't make you see facts. All I can do is present the evidence and let you spin however you see necessary.

In reality, the ball is off the rim and out of the cylinder. Facts are facts man Sorry. We'll get them next time.

You are a moron. The pic you posted shows the ball still in the cylinder.

He's a better angle of the exact moment Bigby-Williams starts the tip.

 

[502 Wildcat]

That was him putting it back in. Of course the ball has to go back over the rim to get back in. That is not the moment he made initil contact with the ball. When he did, it was out of the cylinder, off the rim. It was legal. We can argue it until next year this time if you want. It will not change reality.

That was the moment he made initial contact with the ball, an easy indicator is his hand still firmly on the ball. If it was after he hit it, his hand would not be touching the ball.

It didn't "go back over the cylinder" because it never left to begin with.

Nice try.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Then you are blind or trolling. Every conversation with you ends the same way. I don't care if you want to look foolish in every thread. That's up to you. But I'm done discussing anything with you. You are a complete joke.

 

[skcatfan]

You are a moron. The pic you posted shows the ball still in the cylinder.

He's a better angle of the exact moment Bigby-Williams starts the tip.

I’m not gonna reply to the idiot troll but this is all the proof you need to provide that he’s a lying sack of ****. And he says this isn’t when contact was made with the ball but one view of the video this pic is from proves that to be utterly false.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I’m not gonna reply to the idiot troll but this is all the proof you need to provide that he’s a lying sack of ****. And he says this isn’t when contact was made with the ball but one view of the video this pic is from proves that to be utterly false.

He is obviously a troll. Even his defensive goal tending argument is full of ****. Unless the ball is in the cylinder, there was no defensive goal tending. He keeps saying you can't do that when the shot is in the air. Of course the rule doesn't say anything about when the shot is in the air. It only talks about when the ball is in the cylinder.

 

[ManitouDan_anon]

when my son was a teen he sounded like big ski' . Couldnt never admit he was wrong . Just wouldnt do it . Thankfully he grew up . Guys ignore this idiot , he's simply trolling .

 

[howercat]

From Monday's post about staying #5 in the ap poll:

"hell even the sec screws ky over and over with the toughest schedule, no home cooking, and some of the sorriest officials in the ncaa."

Has there ever been a more true statement?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

If that were actually true, maybe. However, the ball was out of the cylinder and off the rim, as shown in the pic.

Not at all. He gathered the ball while it was off the rim out of the cylinder and he put it back in. His hand are going to stay on it at long as possible to complete the play.

If the ball has to be in the cylinder to be ruled a block, Then why can you not block a ball after it has it it's peak and is on downward trajectory? Why can't you block a ball once it hits the backboard? None of them have to be in the cylinder.

Nice ad hominem.

Except he didn't block the shot or touch the ball in any way, so your analogy is full of ****. What a joke.

 

[Rondoed]

E.J. Montgomery was not guilty of basket interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_interference

 

[Rondoed]

The ball never left the cylinder, nor did it have time left in regulation to leave the cylinder.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

I can't believe you guys have argued with this poster for 6 pages? He's yanking your chain. There are multiple picture showing the ball still in the cylinder when the LSU player touches it. There are multiple pictures showing EJ's hand in the cylinder before the moment when it would have been goaltending. Later today, the SEC will publicly announce it was a screw up, acknowledging the officials blew it.

This is like arguing with someone about what day of the week it is. He's laughing at you guys as you continue to post.

 

[CB3UK]

We have some incredibly ignorant fans. How is anyone arguing that wasnt goaltending at 1pm the day after.

 

[Rondoed]

Sure it is. He grabbed the net, stuck his hand through the net and the basket and hit rim while a shot was in the air. That is goal tending.

I see you don't bother reading the rules even when they are linked for everyone to see. Nor do you bother to watch the whole thing on video from above the rim even when it is conveniently linked.

 

[502 Wildcat]

Sure, I did. It was incorrect. Anyone can post things on wikipedia. It's not a valid source.

Are you going to argue that the sky is purple next? Since you obviously like to debate absolutes.

 

[C*A*T*S]

It doesn’t have to be touching the rim idiot

I want to give this a thousand likes...

 

[C*A*T*S]

There's already proof posted. All the pictures and replay show it was good. Again, whining about it endlessly won't change it. We blew it defensivly. It happens.

Clearly this young dude doesn't understand the meaning of "WITHIN THE CYLINDER".