OT: SMU "Goaltending call"

[R1776U]

can someone please fill me in on why

1. this is on a football board(granted offseason yada yada)
2. it has NOTHING to do with RUTGERS at all


go to the freakin national bball board for this non RU related ****... see link for crap like this

https://collegebasketball.rivals.com/forum.asp?sid=1146&fid=2194&style=2

 

[Rokodesh]

I thought it was the right call. The ball was on the downward motion and would have hit the rim if gone untouched. They've always called goaltending in those cases. Even if it doesn't seem to be a swish directly in the net. I've never seen a player touch the ball in that case and knock away the attempt and not be called for goaltending unless the ball was like 2 feet wide of the basket or underneath the rim. The story would be how a player wasn't called for interfering with a shot to decide the game.

 

[rubaseball78_rivals]

fischy5000 - I don't get why you have a problem with others congratulating Alford? He hit 8 straight 3 pointers prior to that shot.

Also, definitely the right call as I had UCLA in all of my brackets.

[/URL]

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Originally posted by SkilletHead2:
The problem as can be seen from the video, is that without divine intervention, there is no way that ball is anywhere near entering the basket.

Not even close to goaltending.

It WAS goaltending because part of the ball was above the cylinder. You cannot have refs going to video trying to figure out if the spin on the ball would allow for a magic rebound off the rim or not.

It is very simple.. if the ball has a chance to hit the rim, you let it hit the rim. By not allowing the ball to hit the rim, the defender also altered who could rebound it.

Because the "chance to go in" thing is way too vague and creates too much room for interpretation... they should rewrite the rule.. but not in a way to make that call wrong. They should add text about the ball hitting the rim or being above the cylinder.

 

[HeyHuey]

Exponential Sour Grapes Version: On April 17, 2012 Larry Brown was named Basketball HC at SMU. On April 18, 2013 Eddie Jordan was named Basketball HC at RU. My "Id" is somehow OK with Larry getting F'd once in a while. Call it jealousy. Are the SMU facilities at a level that's unattainable for RU? No. Is Larry a better coach than Eddie? Maybe. But the results are not even comparable. SMU wasn't a "brand" in basketball before Larry took over. Complicated stuff this college B-ball......for us.

SMU B-ball Facilities

 

[fischy5000]

Originally posted by rubaseball78:
fischy5000 - I don't get why you have a problem with others congratulating Alford? He hit 8 straight 3 pointers prior to that shot.

Also, definitely the right call as I had UCLA in all of my brackets.

[/URL]

I dont have a problem with teammates congratulating him in general...and yes its great for them and him overall. I was saying that the smirk in that moment on that play like he was the one who hit the game winner (the 'yeah, that was me, i did that' look), yet he threw up a poor/rushed shot that didnt come close and was awarded by the SMU player/ref call. The team jumping around after the win is great after an exciting game like that.
I actually stopped doing brackets because I ended up having too many moments where I cared more about the bracket then just seeing all the great plays/endings.
This post was edited on 3/20 11:28 AM by fischy5000

 

[fischy5000]

Originally posted by GoodOl'Rutgers:

Originally posted by SkilletHead2:
The problem as can be seen from the video, is that without divine intervention, there is no way that ball is anywhere near entering the basket.

Not even close to goaltending.

It WAS goaltending because part of the ball was above the cylinder. You cannot have refs going to video trying to figure out if the spin on the ball would allow for a magic rebound off the rim or not.

It is very simple.. if the ball has a chance to hit the rim, you let it hit the rim. By not allowing the ball to hit the rim, the defender also altered who could rebound it.

Because the "chance to go in" thing is way too vague and creates too much room for interpretation... they should rewrite the rule.. but not in a way to make that call wrong. They should add text about the ball hitting the rim or being above the cylinder.

I realize that the sides are pretty set and there is no convincing anyone of the other sides point, but...

I think the part most (who are against the call) are arguing here is not that the ball was above/below the cylinder. It's the 'chance to go in' part of the rule (atleast that is my issue). If the rule didnt require that to be true, I would be all for the goaltending call. I bet not even Steve Alford would win an argument that there was a chance that shot was going in. The ref who had the angle didnt even make the call.
I think if they were to adjust the rule, they would need to take the 'chance at going in' part out altogether. Leaving the ambiguity out there for the refs to decipher is just asking for trouble...as in this scenario.