DrewDawg said:It was clearly over the rim. The app isn't letting me post pic though. Give me a few.
I don't know. To me you can easily fault the guy that grabbed ball on way down while it was above rim.Ed Hillel said:
Yeah, it looked like it on the last replay they showed. It just sucks, you can't really fault the defender, and it had 0% chance of going in.
For a solid run of competitive games, we've seen a slew of spectacularly stupid plays.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:I thought live it was goaltending, and it still looks like it on replay. The level of stupid coming down the stretch in that game was unbelievably spectacular.
DrewDawg said:I don't know. To me you can easily fault the guy that grabbed ball on way down while it was above rim.
Ed Hillel said:
It had no chance of going in. Guess it was a bad call, as the rule states it needs to have a chance of going in.
Ed Hillel said:It had no chance of going in. Guess it was a bad call, as the rule states it needs to have a chance of going in. Some replays actually make it look like the ball had gone past the rim, while the back half was still within the clyinder, and it may have actually been an airball. You can't blame a defender for that.
The "chance to go in" is totally subjective.
If NBA players are saying its Goaltending then I tend to believe the call was correctRedOctober3829 said:I thought it was a bad call when I saw the play then I see a closeup of the ball outside the cylinder when Moreira touched it and it confirms it.
johnmd20 said:Jamie Erdhal is cute.
soxhop411 said:If NBA players are saying its Goaltending then I tend to believe the call was correct
mabrowndog said:Seth Davis, who earned a tad of respect from me the other night when he dismissed all the outrage over Dayton getting to play on their homecourt by saying "deal with it", just lost all of that respect and then some by digging in his heels on the "no way it was goaltending" horseshit. He's a fucking moron.
Section 5. Basket Interference
Art. 1. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring.
Art. 2. Basket interference occurs when a player:RULE 4 / DEFINITIONS 63
a. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket;
b. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base;
c. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder; or
d. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.
Art. 3. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, in such action, the player touches or grabs the basket.
...
Section 34. Goaltending
Art. 1. Goaltending shall have occurred when a defensive player touches
the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met:
Exceptions: Rules 10-3.6; 10-6.1.i
a. The ball is in its downward flight; and
b. The entire ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the
cylinder.
Art. 2. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward flight.
Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.
mabrowndog said:I'm hoping the invisible man takes his fingers off the nostrils of John Adams, the CBS rules expert with the worst nasal voice in the history of broadcasting.
SumnerH said:
I haven't seen it, but from descriptions in this thread it sounds like it might've been basket interference but not goaltending (the latter requires that the ball might be going in, the former doesn't). Complete nitpick since the penalties are the same for both.
NBA rules are different from NCAA ones on BI.
If it's touching the cylinder, it's Basket Interference and not Goaltending, which means that it's a violation regardless of whether it has a chance to go in.
If it's not touching the cylinder, the goaltending rule applies and it's only a violation if it's got a chance to go in.
(and in if it's touched the backboard and is above the cylinder, the goaltending rule applies even on the way up).
RedOctober3829 said:That rule has to change. By no means should that be goaltending. At the least they should get to review it. If its over the cylinder, that's one thing but it had absolutely no chance of going I.
SumnerH said:I haven't seen it, but from descriptions in this thread it sounds like it might've been basket interference but not goaltending (the latter requires that the ball might be going in, the former doesn't). Complete nitpick since the penalties are the same for both.
Deathofthebambino said:No doubt in my mind Xavier lets 'Ole Miss back in this one. Just the way the games have gone today.
Deathofthebambino said:I hate the call, but IMO, it's probably the right call and a bad rule.
Art. 1. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring.
Ed Hillel said:
What does this mean?
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
If any part of the ball is in the orange thing and below the level of the orange thing, it's in the basket for purposes of BI.
From the angles I've seen there was still a chance the ball could have touched the rim. If the ball still has a chance to touch the rim on the way down you can't touch it as it is goaltending.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Ok, sorry, I know what I was trying to say in response to sumner's point. Let me try this out. The call, on this particular play, has to be basket interference or no call. The ball was defended on the side of the goal away from the shooter, which means the ball had already passed by part of the cylinder by the time it was defended. If the ball, in that circumstance on a jump shot, is not in the cylinder when touched (thus making it it BI), it can't possibly have been going in.
In short, why doesn't the call there have to be BI or no call?
Ed Hillel said:Gotta kick him out.
Another stupid rule. That was a pretty blatant elbow, even if it was during an attempt.
I understand, but it was a pretty vicious wind up on the elbow, even if he's driving and trying to clear space.DrewDawg said:
The Flagrant 2s are usually saved for a defensive player killing someone or vicious swinging of elbows on a rebound. I think they were giving the kid a bit of the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Ed Hillel said:I understand, but it was a pretty vicious wind up on the elbow, even if he's driving and trying to clear space.
Ed Hillel said:Man, this has been painfully bad ball at the end of games. VCU hits a huge 3 and just completely fall asleep on D, leaving a 2 on 1 under the basket.