Smu got hosed

[RF2044]

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.

View attachment 38725

It was very close. Not fully sure the kid touched the ball when it was over the cylinder. Regardless, it was a dumb play by that kid--can't put the refs in a position where they can make that kind of call on a shot that has zero chance of going in. And make no mistake: that was a bad miss / air ball.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I have changed my tune on this and feel like it is more basket interference if anything. It's closer than I thought. I feel bad for that SMU kid who touched it. One would think that he was confused by the trajectory of it and tipped a would-be airball. I don't know. Hard to crucify this kid though in the heat of the moment with the bullets flying and a UCLA player draped all over him. Just a weird shot.

 

[hungrychuck]

Not even sure it was basket interference.

Pretty sure after seeing the two views that the only reason it was even slightly over the rim is that the player deflected it. Side view is more revealing that overhead shot to me.

Nonetheless, poor choice by the player

 

[cuseattle]

Before posting on this, I was waiting for cow. That rule still seems a bit dumb if it has no chance of going in... A rule is still a rule.

 

[jsshap]

Sorry, guys, but you are wrong. It was definitely a goaltend. I honestly don't see how you can argue it wasn't.

I did not know the rule was "chance to go in" and I understand in real time it's very hard for ref to rule that ball that was going to hit rim did not have a chance to go in but this shot had zero point zero chance to go in. As such Kenny smith is right and this was a blown call. This needs to be reviewable.

 

[Dave85]

Not goaltending and the wrong ref made the call. The ref with the best angle let it go. Did not see it live, but UCLA should do the right thing and go home.

No ref is going to try to overturn another refs judgement call. They barely overturn who touched it last type calls!

 

[Dave85]

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.

View attachment 38725

It may not be the best call but the referees interpretation that the ball hitting the rim could possible go in is a split second judgement. I am going to give the referee the break on this one. It's not like the referee was siding with the home crowd on a critical charge/block call with the visiting team down by four and a player clearing jumping completely over the defender!

 

[dollarbill44]

Verdict from the CBS studio - bad call.

That right there conforms to me that it was the right call.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I did not know the rule was "chance to go in" and I understand in real time it's very hard for ref to rule that ball that was going to hit rim did not have a chance to go in but this shot had zero point zero chance to go in. As such Kenny smith is right and this was a blown call. This needs to be reviewable.

That's true only for a goaltend. Basket interference does not have such a qualifier (chance to go in).

 

[Cowtown]

Before posting on this, I was waiting for cow. That rule still seems a bit dumb if it has no chance of going in... A rule is still a rule.

I think the problem here is in the application of "while it still has a chance." No. 2 from SMU recognized the shot didn't have a chance, because of his angle (he's right underneath where it's coming down) before the referees could from where they're positioned. And in my understanding of 3 man mechanics, they're each in good position. Subjectivity is a player in this, to be certain. But the referees interpret objectively based on fairness, the players interpret subjectively based on the will to win. And you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense on this, otherwise you'll have an increase in the number of incidents. For if anyone cares to notice, this instance, as it happened, is actually a very rare occurrence.

Here's an interesting point for ya: in FIBA ball there is no basket cylinder, and a ball rolling around on the rim can legally be swatted away by the defense. True. I'm sure glad almost nobody around here knows that.

 

[JoeSU]

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

You really can't tell from this angle if the player is touching the ball.

 

[Eric15]

People hating on the refs for this call is just nuts to me. This is an extraordinarily difficult call to make in real time.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

You really can't tell from this angle if the player is touching the ball.

If you watch the video you see it either get tipped or bounce off the rim. I still don't see why people aren't seeing this one. The side angle shown earlier is terrible perspective. This was basket interference. Kind of upset the refs didn't say it was that, because it wasn't goal tending. This ball had no chance of going in, so it can't be that.

 

[reedny]

Might as well have called interference against Kueth when he caught the last Kansas airball in 2003.

Yes, and not only that, if that's interference Valvano didn't win a NC either.

 

[reedny]

People hating on the refs for this call is just nuts to me. This is an extraordinarily difficult call to make in real time.

Then go to the monitor and get it right.

 

[Cowtown]

If you watch the video you see it either get tipped or bounce off the rim. I still don't see why people aren't seeing this one. The side angle shown earlier is terrible perspective. This was basket interference. Kind of upset the refs didn't say it was that, because it wasn't goal tending. This ball had no chance of going in, so it can't be that.

But I don't think in the end it makes any real difference. Both goal tending and basket interference are violations, and are penalized the same: the value of the shot in question is awarded (or not awarded) to the non-offending team. The only real issue here is call/no call.

 

[reedny]

Then he should have concentrated on boxing out. He knows he cost the game. Just saw his comments from the presser. Awful way to end his career.

I feel his pain.

Signed,

Brandon Triche

 

[Cowtown]

Then go to the monitor and get it right.

But it seems we still can't tell for certain. The only thing we can really do is be consistent in how the rule is applied, which means the shot must be given a chance to play out, so the refs can see the entire play. For if you force the ref to make a decision, you're stuck with the decision he makes.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Yes, and not only that, if that's interference Valvano didn't win a NC either.

Disagree. That wasn't in the cylinder or on the rim, so it wasn't basket interference, and it wasn't goaltending because it had no chance of going in.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Play better against a sh$t team that didn't even deserve to be in. That's what I would've done.

 

[reedny]

Disagree. That wasn't in the cylinder or on the rim, so it wasn't basket interference, and it wasn't goaltending because it had no chance of going in.

I only saw a brief clip of last night's game .. and I had just returned from a wine tasting event To me, it looked like the Valvano shot .. touched when it was below the rim and not going in.

However, that might have been the Alsace talking.

 

[Cowtown]

Play better against a sh$t team that didn't even deserve to be in. That's what I would've done.

Somebody gets it.

 

[Ghost]

Not even sure it was basket interference.

Pretty sure after seeing the two views that the only reason it was even slightly over the rim is that the player deflected it. Side view is more revealing that overhead shot to me.

Nonetheless, poor choice by the player

That's sort of where I am as well. I think some of the still pictures are worthless because you can't tell if it was pre or post-deflection. It almost certainly hit the rim after the touch, no? So if your pic is after the touch its going to look clearly like a goaltend/interference whatever...

 

[SWC75]

Lorenzo Charles:

Frankly, I don't see the comparison. Charles had no defender in front of him. The SMU guy had his man boxed out. Maybe a UCLA guy could have tipped it in but it would have been "over the back". Not the same play.

 

[two3zone]

Whether it was BI or not BI, I don't think the ref 35 feet away is able to make that call with the angle he was at. If we and a majority of america are arguing about the call on whether it was the right call or the wrong call, it was probably best not to make the call at all, especially from his angle.