NCAA Tournament Thursday Game Thread

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
DrewDawg said:
It was clearly over the rim. The app isn't letting me post pic though. Give me a few.
 
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
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.
I don't know. To me you can easily fault the guy that grabbed ball on way down while it was above rim.
 

mandro ramtinez

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2006
1,612
Boston, MA
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.
For a solid run of competitive games, we've seen a slew of spectacularly stupid plays.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
The best part of that was twitter exploding about how it was a shitty call and then seeing the backtracking.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
@KyleTucker_CJ: Ugh. Sad. Yanick Moreira, who goal tended for SMU: "It's all my fault." Breaks down.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
 
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.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
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. 
 
Yeah, I didn't realize there needed to be a reasonable chance of going in; I think it didn't.  I didn't know that was the rule.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
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 rule was written long before instant replay, long before multiple camera angles, and long before overhead views from backboard-mounted lenses -- none of which the officials have access to on a call like this. It is non-reviewable. The "chance to go in" is totally subjective.
 
Yes, in all likelihood it glances off the edge of the rim and away from the basket. But that is still a call the official HAS to make. You cannot allow a defender to interfere with the ball's flight until ALL of the ball is clearly past the rim.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
 
The "chance to go in" is totally subjective.
 
I know, but even live, it appeared that had absolutely no chance. As for the before technology stuff, it doesn't look good on the NCAA that they don't allow the refs to use it in such a situation.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
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.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
RedOctober3829 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.  
If NBA players are saying its Goaltending then I tend to believe the call was correct
 

TheDeuce222

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
380
Doug Gottlieb doubling down on #teamairball:
 
Tough to lose on an airball #UCLAvsSMU




 
 
https://twitter.com/GottliebShow/status/578672203425779712
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
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.
 
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.
 
 
 
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.
 
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 if it's touched the backboard and is above the cylinder, the Goaltending rule applies even on the way up).
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
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.
 
His voice is the worst voice I have ever heard.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
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).
 
Everyone seemed to be assuming the call was goaltending, not BI.  I agree that BI would have been a more defensible call, but if there was any portion of the ball in the cylinder, it was just barely so.  
 
BI is usually only called after the ball has contacted the rim, because if the ball has not yet touched the rim, and it's touched in the cylinder, it's virtually always (maybe just "always) going to be goaltending.  
 
You can definitely have goaltending, of course, that's not BI.  But can you have a ball that is BI, on a jump shot that has not yet touched the rim, that is not also goaltending?  Not sure.  But if you could, I think it would look an awful lot like the play in question.
 
Edit:  This is a very poor post, since it can't be GT if it's touching the cylinder, and re-reading it, I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say.  Best to ignore.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
 
Oh wait, below the clyinder? What?
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
I hate the call, but IMO, it's probably the right call and a bad rule.  The worst part is not allowing it to be reviewable.  Seems to me a play like that is pretty much why you have replay in the first place. 
 
No doubt in my mind Xavier lets 'Ole Miss back in this one.  Just the way the games have gone today.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
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.
 
Good point, and I'd lost track of the distinction in the rules. But yeah, the "it wasn't going in" aspect is irrelevant.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
Deathofthebambino said:
No doubt in my mind Xavier lets 'Ole Miss back in this one.  Just the way the games have gone today.
 
NEVER doubt the word of this man.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
Deathofthebambino said:
I hate the call, but IMO, it's probably the right call and a bad rule.
 
In the NCAA it's technically basket interference if you inbound across the court and someone touches the ball as it flies over the basket--even though it wouldn't be a legal basket if it dropped in at that point.
 
The NBA rule does not have the same problem.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
 
What does this mean? The wide part of the ball is under the rim, but the top part is still in line with the cylinder? That means airballs could fall under the rule, which may have been the case here (tough to tell).
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
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?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Ed Hillel said:
 
What does this mean?
 
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.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
 
Ohhhh, righhht. I was thinking it more complicated in that part of the ball is under the rim, while the top half is still rim level, which is kind of like what it looks like happened here.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,568
California. Duh.
The part that everyone seems to be ignoring is that the UCLA guy ended up with the ball after the tip, and had a layup to tie (and possibly an and1 to take the lead) anyways.  Saying SMU wins that game without that call is by no means a sure thing.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
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?
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.
People are making the mistake of thinking possible means probable. It doesn't. If there is any chance at all that the ball could hit the rim, then there is a chance it could take the right bounce and go in. I don't have any problem with that call, there certainly looked like there was a chance the ball would hit the edge of the rim, it was above the level of the rim and the defender touched it. To me that's goaltending by the rules.
 
Also SMU had 2 shots after that and couldn't get a point.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Gotta kick him out.

Another stupid rule. That was a pretty blatant elbow, even if it was during an attempt.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
There should be a 60 second clock on the monitor.  You get to review for 60 seconds and then that's it.  If you can't figure it out in 60 seconds, just play ball.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Where the hell is MIchele Tafoya to tell us if he will be available for post-game interviews?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Ed Hillel said:
Gotta kick him out.

Another stupid rule. That was a pretty blatant elbow, even if it was during an attempt.
 
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

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
I understand, but it was a pretty vicious wind up on the elbow, even if he's driving and trying to clear space.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,457
That's got to be a flagrant 2 to me, it is a deliberate elbow to the face and not part of any kind of basketball move. There is no reason he needs to throw his arm out there except to make contact with the defender. Sure he probably meant to hit him in the chest, but to me that is at least as bad if not worse than clearing space on a rebound.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
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.
 
I know, but that's kinda what I'm saying--all Flagrants are vicious, that's what makes them Flagrant. Those type where he was clearing space generally aren't called 2s because they save 2s for the cases where the player is clearly not even really attempting a basketball play.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
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.
 

mabrowndog

Ask me about total zone...or paint
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
39,676
Falmouth, MA
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.
 
Awful until that final possession by VCU, and I liked Shaka's decision to just go for it at the end instead of calling time-out. OSU just manned up big time on D.
 
I was hoping for an OT game anyway.