1hawkeye1
Well-Known Member
Did not notice it not coming off the glass first. Just heard the announcers comment on it. My bad.
Meltdown in Badgertown
- Thread starter 1hawkeye1
- Start date
Did not notice it not coming off the glass first. Just heard the announcers comment on it. My bad.
NewMexHawk
Well-Known Member
And Wisconsin plays a style of ball that if they get behind double-digtis, it is very very difficult for them to catch up.
I hope Iowa DID cost them the B1G title. Nothing would be sweeter.
I hope Iowa DID cost them the B1G title. Nothing would be sweeter.
1hawkeye1
Well-Known Member
Seems to be some controversy on whether it hit the glass first or not.
But if it was goaltending. Then final score 68-67 Wisconsin. Seems pretty deciding to me.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
It did, there is no way Wisconsin can win the B1G now. Even if MSU was to lose the rest of their games and Wisc wins out MSU still owns the head to head tiebreaker.
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
Re: Some of us are old enough to remember when..
Davis seems to have a basketball in his rear right now about Iowa hoops, with his recent comments about Iowa and Alford and his comments about recent games. Not sure what's up with that.
Davis seems to have a basketball in his rear right now about Iowa hoops, with his recent comments about Iowa and Alford and his comments about recent games. Not sure what's up with that.
uofihawkInation
Well-Known Member
You guys do realize Iowa essentially won by 4 right? Nobody guarded Taylor, allowing him to sink a 3 at the buzzer. A goaltend in the first half did not impact the outcome of the game.
SheagleHawk
Well-Known Member
so you think if we were up 2 after matts free throws we would have still let them shoot an uncontested 3 at the buzzer? or before that let them have an uncontested layup? if they would have called that goal tend it would have changed the entire end of the game. its not as simple as adding 2 points to the final score
JerseyTyHawk
Well-Known Member
That is fair. When I first saw it, I thought it was goaltending, but it was definately close. Close enough that the officials missed it. I'll take it anyway I can get it!
JerseyTyHawk
Well-Known Member
I actually didn't realize this, thanks for the info. I honestly feel the Hawks got a couple of calls in the first half, but the second half seemed to be strongly slanted the Badgers way. I really try not to complain about officiating, but some of the calls against us were really bad, and other times there were bad no calls, for example, when White got pushed out of bounds.
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure it is the opposite
LG210
Well-Known Member
I think this is right, but regardless, the ball was on its way down when it was blocked.
It was a goaltend under both versions of the rule.
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
Never trust a Cyclone fan
In both NCAA basketball and NBA basketball, goaltending is also called if the ball has already touched the backboard while it is above the rim in its flight, regardless of whether it is in upward or downward flight
Goaltending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NCAA committee recommends change in goaltending rule - Men's College Basketball - ESPN
In both NCAA basketball and NBA basketball, goaltending is also called if the ball has already touched the backboard while it is above the rim in its flight, regardless of whether it is in upward or downward flight
Goaltending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NCAA committee recommends change in goaltending rule - Men's College Basketball - ESPN
LG210
Well-Known Member
Right... The remainder of the game would have been identical to how it played out without the goal-tend call.
EddyP
Well-Known Member
LG210
Well-Known Member
Whether or not you are right on this, the second link does nothing to support your position. Recommendations are not rules. I'm not saying that the rule hasn't been changed, but your second link doesn't prove what you think it does.
An NCAA committee has recommended changing the goaltending rule so that a ball that is completely above the rim and has already hit the backboard could not be touched, regardless of whether it is on an upward or downward flight.
LG210
Well-Known Member
Backboard is the rule. See below.
Section 34. Goaltending
Art. 1. Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches
the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
Exceptions: Rules 10-3.6; 10-6.1.i
a. The ball is in its downward flight; and
b. The entire ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility,
while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the
cylinder.
Art. 2. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free
throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward
flight.
Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal
try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight.
In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.
NCAA Publications - 2009-2011 Men's & Women's Basketball Rules (2 Year Publicaton)
Section 34. Goaltending
Art. 1. Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches
the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
Exceptions: Rules 10-3.6; 10-6.1.i
a. The ball is in its downward flight; and
b. The entire ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility,
while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the
cylinder.
Art. 2. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free
throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward
flight.
Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal
try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight.
In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.
NCAA Publications - 2009-2011 Men's & Women's Basketball Rules (2 Year Publicaton)
