Smu got hosed

[SUMBA]

I think you are correct. But looking again at the rule book, I think it was basket interference.


Art. 2. Basket interference

a. Basket interference occurs when a player:

1. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within

the basket;

Rule 9 / Violations and Penalties 85

2. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the


ring as its lower base;


From the vine I posted, it certainly looked to be in the cylinder. It was going to hit the rim and bounce off, so it was in the cylinder.

Upon further review, you are correct. It was not a goaltend but it was basket interference. From the overhead shot it was clearly "within the cylinder."

 

[CuseFaninVT]

You are seeing things.

Really wish there was a way to slow those down, but I get what you are saying.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Upon further review, you are correct. It was not a goaltend but it was basket interference. From the overhead shot it was clearly "within the cylinder."

Crappy rule, but it's the rule.

 

[Cowtown]

Consider, not one of the refs has that angle, and also that by rule, it's not reviewable. It's just one of those tough calls that happen in basketball. Curiously enough, the photo shows 'lead' looking right toward it, but his view may be blocked, if only partially, by the backboard. Lead is supposed to be looking at bodies from about the bottom of the backboard down. The goaltend is supposed to be 'middle's call right there, but remember his line is from from the side opposite to the play, and worse, from below looking up, so what we're seeing is a much better look than he had. Sure, we can all say no. 2 should have let it hit, but you really can't blame him for going for the ball because he's got probably the best look at it of anyone. :noidea:

Anyway, I was out when it happened - did the refs huddle and discuss it? Another problem is that these refs probably haven't worked together before, and this is just the kind of play that will get kicked at tournament time. It's hard to go down that way, but if you don't want to get beaten by one call, or a buzzer-beater, play better sooner. The game is 40 minutes long for a reason.

 

[Cowtown]

Sadly enough, I have the rules on my computer.

Geez, and I thought I was a little twisted.

 

[bpo57]

Upon further review, you are correct. It was not a goaltend but it was basket interference. From the overhead shot it was clearly "within the cylinder."

I've come to the conclusion that this is one of those plays that's like a rorshach test. We see what we want to see.

 

[Cowtown]

The only one who screwed up more was the out of position ref that made that horrible call.

I'm not so sure about that - looking at scotty's picture, which number shot the ball?

 

[SWC75]

Didn't see it live. Watched the two links on the first page. My vote: goaltend. That wasn't going to go in but it was no airball.

At any rate you don't give them a chance to make that call.

 

[Ghost]

Verdict: NO goaltend!

lol...I was going to say "NO GOALTEND" as well - I think it only hits the rim because he touches it.

 

[Ghost]

This vine shows it in the cylinder when touched.

https://vine.co/v/OYz6zd0nWUA

Dammit, from that angle I think that shot was actually going to go in!

What kind of witchcraft is this?

It's an illusion!

 

[SWC75]

Dammit, from that angle I think that shot was going to actually go in!

What kind of witchcraft is this?

It's an illusion!

 

[longislandcuse]

Clark Kellogg is the ultimate "yes man". Dude ALWAYS agrees with the refs. I can't stand him, he brings nothing to any broadcast.

 

[rosconey]

players make errors- coach's make errors -ref make errors

no doubt smu got a groin punch

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Clark Kellogg is the ultimate "yes man". Dude ALWAYS agrees with the refs. I can't stand him, he brings nothing to any broadcast.

He used to be really good when he was just a dude doing big ten games. He had this great line about a player's game being like a baby's behind...smooth but at times can be explosive.

then he became a caricature of himself like so many do.

 

[Calilivin28]

There's no clear indicator on this. Would it have gone in? Most likely not, but the SMU player can't put themselves in a position like that. I do agree though that the wrong ref made the call as he didn't have the best angle. With that said, Bruins have a great shot at the Sweet 16 now, so I'm happy, even if I did have SMU winning on my bracket.

 

[CorduroyG]

The question is was the ball gonna hit the rim? It obviously wasn't going in, that's not even a question. But If it has even the slightest chance of just barely grazing the rim then to me it's a goaltend. I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that wasn't gonna graze the rim, so I think the ref got it right.

Players always gotta be very careful about touching the ball in those situations, it's too risky.

 

[JoeSU]

That was definitely going to hit the rim.

I'm just as certain it wasn't.
Then again, I'm just as certain the dress was brown and white.

 

[Orangeman]

I mean, the people saying that was a goal tend (here and on TV)….did they play basketball?

 

[BuffOrange]

Know the rule before you argue?
Apparently the rule is it has to have a chance to enter the basket. So ya terrible call.

 

[kirbivore]

its a clear and obvious goaltend. The ball was 99 percent not going to go in based on trajectory, but it was going to careen off the rim and go wide right. the SMU guy that touched it is a moron.

Craig Forth came within a fingernail of interfering with Gerry's buzzer beater at G'town

 

[Phenomenon]

Over the cylinder my friends. Please award bracket points to Mr. Phenomenon

 

[Jesus8123]

If that's a goaltend, then maybe they should take away NCState's title with Coach V.

Whether it was gonna hit the rim, or not, the rule clearly states that the ball must have "a reasonable chance" of going in. No where in the laws of physics, does that ball ever have a chance to go in...whether it hits the rim or not.

 

[rrlbees]

If that's a goaltend, then maybe they should take away NCState's title with Coach V. Whether it was gonna hit the rim, or not, the rule clearly states that the ball must have "a reasonable chance" of going in. No where in the laws of physics, does that ball ever have a chance to go in...whether it hits the rim or not.

That's for goal tend. This was basket interference.

 

[RF2044]

Bad play by that kid, but sorry Mr. Phenomenon -- that was a poor call.

It was an air ball.

 

[rrlbees]

Bad play by that kid, but sorry Mr. Phenomenon -- that was a poor call. It was an air ball. http://www.si.com/college-basketbal...ruins-smu-mustangs-ncaa-tournament-louisville

In that picture if the ball is coming down, the left side of the ball, even just a 1/2 inch or less, can hit the rim, it's basket interference. The angle from above validates that. Here's a pic from the rules for basket interference which says a player can't touch the net, rim or ball.