UCLA survives on weird call

The ball was wide of the basket... the ball was going to graze the rim... it was goaltending... it wasn't goaltending... That will be debated for quite sometime, but the real issue is the fact that the refs were not allowed to review the play. That's absolutely ridiculous. I've seen referees huddle around a monitor for 5 minutes to add .3 seconds to the game clock but a goaltend can't be reviewed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can they go to the monitors to see if the ball touched the rim on a shot clock violation? If so, then that makes this even more ridiculous.
 
bws258 said:
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%.
Click to expand...


Well said bws!! Agreed..
 
sioux34 said:
Misleading how?

It is both clearly to the right and long of the rim and may be below the rim as well.

Terrible call.
Click to expand...

because of the angle of the camera presented in this picture to make it look like an airball. The Ball would have knicked or drilled the rim had it not been interfered with. If a player is going to alter the path of the ball before it has a chance to hit the rim then its goaltending. Simple as that.
 
hawkfan340 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct, that ball had no chance of entering the rim via a bounce of the rim or in its original trajectory.
 
mopkins said:
because of the angle of the camera presented in this picture to make it look like an airball. The Ball would have knicked or drilled the rim had it not been interfered with. If a player is going to alter the path of the ball before it has a chance to hit the rim then its goaltending. Simple as that.
Click to expand...


that is the problem every angle i saw that ball is NOT going to hit anything but air....the guy who actually called it had NO angle what so ever..bad call
 
Hawk4Fan said:
that is the problem every angle i saw that ball is NOT going to hit anything but air....the guy who actually called it had NO angle what so ever..bad call
Click to expand...

I'm there with you. The defender wasn't trying to knock it out of the rim, he was trying to rebound a freaking air ball.
 
I have not been able to find a link to an overhead shot, but the views i have seen in no way make me think the ball was going to draw iron. If anyone can find the overhead shot, please post a link.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
Some of you still have no clue or haven't any idea what the rule of goaltending or basket Interferences is, I keep seeing people say the ball wasn't going in, so bad call. Seriously go read the rule before commenting!! It could have been called either way goaltending or basket interference either way points are automatically rewarded for either call.


http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/19/8260313/smu-shot-basket-interference
Click to expand...

Hold on, so now you are saying it WASN'T goaltending, but was basket interference??

I just don't see it as you do. That ball isn't going to hit the rim at all, that is an airball. The shot was LONG and right, IE, no way the trajectory of the ball allows it to clip the rim in any way shape or from.

I get what you are saying, but you are dead wrong, that ball never hit the rim, and was never going to hit the rim. The dude is rebounding an airball the way I see it, and that is NOT goaltending or basket interference. This is nothing to so with AlFraud for me, just the way I see it, and I see it as an airball, therefor CAN'T be basket interference, or goaltending.
 
HawkPrdatr40 said:
Some of you still have no clue or haven't any idea what the rule of goaltending or basket Interferences is, I keep seeing people say the ball wasn't going in, so bad call. Seriously go read the rule before commenting!! It could have been called either way goaltending or basket interference either way points are automatically rewarded for either call.


http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/19/8260313/smu-shot-basket-interference
Click to expand...

I actually have read the rule, thoroughly. Hence why I'm trying to correct the errant opinions in this thread who very clearly have no idea what the actual rule on goal-tending is.

No chance to go in --> No goal-tending.
Not currently in the cylinder when touched --> Not basket interference.

Whether the ball was in the cylinder when touched is something that can be debated, because it is not clear. I think not. But the call on the court was goal-tending (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, it's a bad call by definition since the ball had no chance to go through the basket. Therefore not goal-tending, clearly.
 
Still have not seen an overhead vid or still of the actual shot in question. From the vids i have seen, i still say there is no way that ball was in the cylinder.
 
deanvogs said:
Hold on, so now you are saying it WASN'T goaltending, but was basket interference??

I just don't see it as you do. That ball isn't going to hit the rim at all, that is an airball. The shot was LONG and right, IE, no way the trajectory of the ball allows it to clip the rim in any way shape or from.

I get what you are saying, but you are dead wrong, that ball never hit the rim, and was never going to hit the rim. The dude is rebounding an airball the way I see it, and that is NOT goaltending or basket interference. This is nothing to so with AlFraud for me, just the way I see it, and I see it as an airball, therefor CAN'T be basket interference, or goaltending.
Click to expand...


The ball never hits the rim because the SMU player touched it before it could. Hence the call, easy call and good call.. :)

http://www.foxsports.com/college-ba...k-moreira-goaltending-call-by-the-book-031915
 
Last edited:
sioux34 said:
Still have not seen an overhead vid or still of the actual shot in question. From the vids i have seen, i still say there is no way that ball was in the cylinder.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this link: http://www.outsports.com/2015/3/19/8260313/smu-shot-basket-interference

From the overhead it appears the ball has a chance at hitting the rim. While the call sucks I do believe the officials got it right and I see no video evidence that could have over turned the call anyway.
 
I guess i had
missed that link. I am viewing on my janky iphone, so it is hard for me to make a decision. I will get back to this after viewing on a larger screen.
 
sioux34 said:
I guess i had
missed that link. I am viewing on my janky iphone, so it is hard for me to make a decision. I will get back to this after viewing on a larger screen.
Click to expand...

lmao, ok "Mr Official" we will wait for your decision. :)

I can tell you right now that the angle is not definitive but what you can see is part of the basketball is over the rim, what you can't see is how high the ball is. The only thing that is definitive is that ball had no chance at going into the basket and it was poor judgement by the SMU player to reach up and touch that ball.

The only question we should be asking here is how big of a bonus will Alford get once they beat UAB again and advance to the Sweet 16? Perhaps he can get himself another raise.
 
ssckelley said:
lmao, ok "Mr Official" we will wait for your decision. :)

I can tell you right now that the angle is not definitive but what you can see is part of the basketball is over the rim, what you can't see is how high the ball is. The only thing that is definitive is that ball had no chance at going into the basket and it was poor judgement by the SMU player to reach up and touch that ball.

The only question we should be asking here is how big of a bonus will Alford get once they beat UAB again and advance to the Sweet 16? Perhaps he can get himself another raise.
Click to expand...


Agree ^^^
 
Ok, after watching that clip on the jumbotron at the house, it is possible the ball could have drawn iron. I sheepishly withdraw my objection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top