UCLA survives on weird call
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
D
DDThompson
Guest
So refs getting killed over questionable call....
How many bone-headed plays by SMU that cannot be blamed on refs.
How many bone-headed plays by SMU that cannot be blamed on refs.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
Misleading as far as the ball having a chance to go in, or for it being goaltending? I don't argue that, by rule, that it's goaltending. I'm just saying that the rule needs to be changed.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
Its not like this is a new rule been in the books for decades. Now it needs changed?? I disagree. If the ball can hit the rim it can go in, maybe not that shot today so how do you change The rule?? IMO You can't..
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
I think the rule should be stated as the director of officials stated (don't know if you saw the interview). The purpose of the rule, as he states, is to call goaltending on a shot that has a chance to go in. As it is worded, the downward arc, chance to hit the rim, etc. is the criteria. I think the problem would be how to word it. With review (not that I think we need something else to review) you can certainly have a better chance to see if a shot has a chance to go in. This shot definitely had no chance to go in. You can see that clearly on the birdseye view of it.
CalvaryHawk
Well-Known Member
Bingo. (Like I stated above, they choked this game away.)
sioux34
Well-Known Member
Misleading how?
It is both clearly to the right and long of the rim and may be below the rim as well.
Terrible call.
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
Everybody's hatred of Alford clouds their judgment. Under the rules it was obviously goal tending. Under NBA, NCAA & International rules it was goal tending. So all three rules have been in effect for decades, but because Alford won, the rule needs to be changed. A bunch of idiots.
ATLHawkeye
Well-Known Member
Another thing to consider is that if the ball would have hit the rim, as it looks like it would have done, it would have changed the trajectory of the ball and possibly made an impact on who gets the rebound. With the SMU player keeping it from hitting the rim, we'll never know if UCLA would have rebounded and put it back in.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
If that's "misleading", then Jim Valvano and NC State benefited from offensive goaltending/basket interference in 1983.
Bryce and Steve Alford and their smarmy attitude while claiming that is despicable.
But, at least the SMU kid is "owning" it. If it were the reverse, Alford and UCLA would be going to court to get it reversed or running a smear campaign against all NCAA officials. Either that, or he'd broker a deal for the ref to "redshirt" a year...er...or something.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
That isn't the point. The point is that--conveniently--a non-reviewable situation also has a terrible/wrong call that cost a team a win.
That call wouldn't have gone against them in the reverse.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
"Obviously"? Watch it again. If THAT is "goaltending", Jim Valvano, RIP, should have his NC wiped off the books. Almost identical location for each play.
The ball was DEFINITELY to the right. Anyone saying it was a "good" call either:
A) Is still having sex with Steve Alford
B) Has officiated sports and was equally as bad at it as the idiot who made that call
Ironic that it wasn't reviewable (the goaltending), but the 3-point-or-not part is.
If the call had happened in the reverse, Alford would STILL be complaining.
And there is the difference: class.
Larry Brown isn't still moaning over it. The SMU player is "owning" it (not sure why, as he said, he "must have" hit the rim "or something", i.e., he, too, knows it was a terrible call) and apologizing to fans and teammates.
It has ZERO to do with Alford. It has EVERYTHING to do with being a bogus call.
It's crap like this that takes some of the joy out of watching the tournament. Even with "instant replay", the NCAA figures out a way to f--- it up.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
lol.. Even the SMU player said after in press conference he should have let ball hit rim, I messed up.. So tell me again how it didn't meet criteria (c) The player knew it would hit rim.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Skipped reading classes? He said his hand or finger "must have hit the rim or something". He has enough class to own it and KNOWS that pushing it gets the school or coach (potentially) in trouble.
Just because he didn't let it hit the rim (it was already past it) doesn't make it the right call.
My guess is any bird's-eye view of that play will be gone by tomorrow. May have seen it a few times, but it WILL get "accidentally erased". Bet on it.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
Really?? The NC State shot to win title was a foot short didn't meet any of the criteria for goaltending, it was basicly an alley-oop and really, really bad defense by Houston..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ICZ8HO8c9bw
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
WindsorHawk
Well-Known Member
UCLA is the lesser team IMO and potentially in our path so I'm glad they won...right or wrong.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Only difference is angle.
If this happens tomorrow to Iowa, will your tune change?
It was a bad call. Not a single radio or TV announcer I have heard agreed with it. Only AFTER the game, in CYA mode, has ANY announcer (and those were in-the-studio-we're-in-the-tank folks) agreed with it.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Actually, from a potential-future-matchup standpoint, I would MUCH rather have played UCLA than SMU. Nic Moore would eat our guards alive.
