CuseFaninVT
2023-24 Iggy Winner Leading Rebounder
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Messages
- 46,119
- Like
- 102,109
I mean, has to be doesn't it?
I mean, has to be doesn't it?
i didn't think so. i don't know the exact rule or what % of that ball was directly above the cylinder (certainly not 100 maybe 50 ) but it was definitely in an upward and outward trajectory away and not going in when touched.I mean, has to be doesn't it?
Not goal tending but maybe basket interference. It’s not reviewable only the time on the clock.
That game was exciting to watch. That PG of theirs, Tremont Waters, whom we showed interest in but wasn't reciprocated, is stellar along with several other LSU players. That team looked liked the real deal, at least last night it did, which is the first time I've seen them play. How they got NJ product & Mickey D stud Naz Reid is a bit peculiar...
I mean, has to be doesn't it?
BC that's the ruleit was, you can rewiew things like shot clock violations but not goal tending, why?
That game was exciting to watch. That PG of theirs, Tremont Waters, whom we showed interest in but wasn't reciprocated, is stellar along with several other LSU players. That team looked liked the real deal, at least last night it did, which is the first time I've seen them play. How they got NJ product & Mickey D stud Naz Reid is a bit peculiar...
im just questioning why someone created a rule and thought one was a bigger deal than the other.. both are pretty clear things to see at about the same level on review.BC that's the rule
side angle looks like the ball was clear. anyways the call was it counted and the review was probably just the clock. which he clearly beat. goaltending or interference not reviewable and certainly not reversible here.It was goaltending but I thought only the above-basket camera clearly showed it.