UCLA survives on weird call

[deanvogs]

If that's goaltending, then the rule needs to be changed.

The ball is clearly long and right of the rim. The bottom of the ball is below the rim, so there is no chance the ball hits the rim. If this is goaltending, then defenders shouldn't be able to defend against a lob pass, as those are just as close to the rim as this "shot" was. What was the kid supposed to do, let the air ball hit the ground so that UCLA could get an easy put back? Terrible call, and I was screaming it was an airball right away, it was easy to see that, and this pictures shows it as well.

 

[DDThompson]

It's SMU and UCLA.

I don't give a rat's rip.

 

[hawkfan340]

Yes clearly!!

1. In basketball, goaltending is the violation of interfering with the ball when it is on its way to the basket and it is (a) in its downward flight, (b) entirely above the rim and has the possibility of entering the basket, and (c) not touching the rim.

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.

What the kid said is completely irrelevant. That's a red herring.

And (c) doesn't matter. If it doesn't meet (b) --> no goal-tending. In order for goal-tending, all the conditions must be met. If it doesn't meet (b), you can stop. It's not goal-tending.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Crazily enough, on ESPN, 57% say it's the wrong call. Then again, to some in the political game, that 43% qualifies as "consensus".

 

[lightning1]

If the ball is coming down and going to hit the rim.....you can't touch it. It looked like it was going to draw iron if he had left it alone. That's goal tending as far as I know. And I hate the Alfrauds!

 

[hawkfan340]

If the ball is coming down and going to hit the rim.....you can't touch it. It looked like it was going to draw iron if he had left it alone. That's goal tending as far as I know. And I hate the Alfrauds!

You are representing the common understanding of the rule, but not the actual rule that's on the books. In order for it to be goal-tending by the actual rule, the ball must have a possibility to go in. Chance to hit the rim doesn't matter.

 

[sioux34]

No way that was going to draw iron.

 

[deanvogs]

You are representing the common understanding of the rule, but not the actual rule that's on the books. In order for it to be goal-tending by the actual rule, the ball must have a possibility to go in. Chance to hit the rim doesn't matter.

Plus the ball has to be "completely above the rim". The bottom of the ball is below the rim, you can grab it at that point even if the ball would/did barely nick the rim

 

[lightning1]

The ball is clearly long and right of the rim. The bottom of the ball is below the rim, so there is no chance the ball hits the rim. If this is goaltending, then defenders shouldn't be able to defend against a lob pass, as those are just as close to the rim as this "shot" was. What was the kid supposed to do, let the air ball hit the ground so that UCLA could get an easy put back? Terrible call, and I was screaming it was an airball right away, it was easy to see that, and this pictures shows it as well.

That picture does seem like it's not going to hit the rim but the slow motion replay from the top of the backboard, directly over the play, shows that the side of the ball was going to hit the rim. Not by much, mind you. You can Google it and watch the replay I'm referring to. Nothing would have made me happier to see the Alfrauds going home early. Trust me.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

If the ball is coming down and going to hit the rim.....you can't touch it. It looked like it was going to draw iron if he had left it alone. That's goal tending as far as I know. And I hate the Alfrauds!

Agreed and IMO there is no doubt it was going to draw iron, the player even said it was going to and he shouldn't have touched it. I will take what he said over anyone that is typing from his laptop at home. End of discussion in my book..

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

No way that was going to draw iron.

So the SMU player is lying? gotcha.

 

[lightning1]

You are representing the common understanding of the rule, but not the actual rule that's on the books. In order for it to be goal-tending by the actual rule, the ball must have a possibility to go in. Chance to hit the rim doesn't matter.

That shot had no chance of going in, I agree. But I thought there was part of the rule that applied to the ball hitting any part of the rim. I certainly could be mistaken but the Head of Officiating seemed to have the same understanding of the rule that I did.
No worries. It would make my day to meet and crush Alfraud in the NCAA tournament. That dream is NOT possible if we can't play them......so there is that to hope for.

 

[lightning1]

Just read the rule and it clearly states that the ball must be above the level of the rim, in order to be goal tending. So, I have to say that it does appear that the bottom of the ball may have been at or even below the level of the rim but it's tough to say. Unless the camera is at the same level of the rim in the photo provided, it's too tough to say for sure.
Edit:

That camera angle was definitely above the rim, so it seems like the ball is below the rim level. I still think it's technically a goal tend because I think a level camera angle would have shown the ball to be completely above the rim. IMO.

 

[lightning1]

Did I mention that I HATE the Alfrauds? Just making sure.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Just read the rule and it clearly states that the ball must be above the level of the rim, in order to be goal tending. So, I have to say that it does appear that the bottom of the ball may have been at or even below the level of the rim but it's tough to say. Unless the camera is at the same level of the rim in the photo provided, it's too tough to say for sure.

The still picture on Page 3 the players hand IMO is clearly above rim touching the ball.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

People really think this ball isn't going to touch the rim and or ball is below the rim. lol..gotcha!

https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/img_1496.jpg?w=1280&h=950

 

[Thawki]

The ball had zero chance of going in which is one of the thresholds to call goaltending.

Your statement is COMPLETELY wrong. It can have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of going in, but if it would have drawn iron it is goal tending by rule.

Just because you don't like Alford doesn't mean that was a bad call. It was an obvious call and a good call. And probably a call that no one on this board cared for. But it was the right call and it had to be made.

 

[hawkfan340]

Your statement is COMPLETELY wrong. It can have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of going in, but if it would have drawn iron it is goal tending by rule.

Just because you don't like Alford doesn't mean that was a bad call. It was an obvious call and a good call. And probably a call that no one on this board cared for. But it was the right call and it had to be made.

No.

 

[bws258]

It's funny to see the divergence of what some people think the rule is, versus what the rule actually is.

If the player had let the ball travel another inch before grabbing it the official wouldn't have blown his whistle. As it was, however, the player forced the official to make a judgement call by being over-aggressive. Should baby Alford have gotten credit for making that shot? No. But it's not his fault, and it's not the officials fault, it's the SMU player's fault, 100%.

 

[Thawki]

I understand what the rule is and I heard what the director of NCAA officials said about it, but I'm saying that, if that's goaltending, the rule needs to be changed. No chance that ball goes in.

Just to be clear, then, you disagree with the rule. Because, just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it shouldn't have been called if that is the rule. The right call can be made, even if someone doesn't like the rule. And that means the right call was made.