Another Lane Violation (Notre Dame)

[H8IAST8]

What a crock. Then they call an intentional foul??

 

[Scooter]

Both valid calls.

 

[jacknicholson]

Sir Charles Barkley calling the referees out for the call.....

He is making sense, horse sense, that is.....

 

[H8IAST8]

Both valid calls.

I didn't see the lane violation. he did not enter until the ball was well out of his hands. I paused it.

 

[tm3308]

What a crock. Then they call an intentional foul??

That was a lane violation. You can't come in from behind the arc before the ball hits the rim.

 

[Scooter]

It was the dude from behind the shooter that violated it.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Both valid calls.

Valid but I will disagree with the call at that point in the game. Barkley is right a game played that close for 40 minutes can't and shouldn't EVER be decided by an official, should be decided by the player. Hence the no call on the foul by the Creighton player today on the final shot.

 

[jacknicholson]

I will talk to the Commissioner about this.....

 

[H8IAST8]

What a crock. Then they call an intentional foul??

That was a lane violation. You can't come in from behind the arc before the ball hits the rim.

ok, they said until its released. I paused it when the ball was half way to the rim and he was still behind the line though. very close.

 

[jacknicholson]

Valid but I will disagree with the call at that point in the game. Barkley is right a game played that close for 40 minutes can't and shouldn't EVER be decided by an official.

Precisely......

To end a hard fought game on a call like that is a disgrace.....

 

[Scooter]

LOL What about the previous 39 mins where ND did not play well enough to close the game out. They were up 10 in the second half. Does all previous play no longer matter in the last minute?

 

[tm3308]

Valid but I will disagree with the call at that point in the game. Barkley is right a game played that close for 40 minutes can't and shouldn't EVER be decided by an official, should be decided by the player. Hence the no call on the foul by the Creighton player today on the final shot.

1. The no call in the Creighton game was good, because that was debatable. This wasn't.
2. The game was decided by the player. If he'd kept his *** behind the line, there would have been no call.

 

[Scooter]

A roll is a roll and a toll is a toll. If we don't get no tolls, we don't get no rolls.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

1. The no call in the Creighton game was good, because that was debatable. This wasn't.
2. The game was decided by the player. If he'd kept his *** behind the line, there would have been no call.

Hack on the elbow is debatable? Oh you mean that a Division 1 player usually misses a 3 by 10 feet.. lol Okay!!

 

[hawkeyewx]

A roll is a roll and a toll is a toll. If we don't get no tolls, we don't get no rolls.

"We're refs(MANLY refs), we're refs in stripes... YES!..."

 

[tm3308]

Hack on the elbow is debatable? Oh you mean that a Division 1 player usually misses a 3 by 10 feet.. lol Okay!!

He wasn't short by 10 feet, and off balance desperation shots aren't usually too accurate.

 

[Iowatailgate]

The call was correct because it's a rule.

However, the rule needs to be changed. There's absolutely no reason why a player can't run towards the hoop after the ball is released.
I have never seen that call made before this tournament began. I've now seen it twice in 24 hours.

 

[jacknicholson]

Why are rules made......?

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

He wasn't short by 10 feet, and off balance desperation shots aren't usually too accurate.

Keep trying..

 

[tm3308]

The call was correct because it's a rule.

However, the rule needs to be changed. There's absolutely no reason why a player can't run towards the hoop after the ball is released.
I have never seen that call made before this tournament began. I've now seen it twice in 24 hours.

It's damn near impossible to box out a guy flying in like that without fouling, which is why it's a rule.