SMU goaltending call

[JeffCountyVolFan]

If you've seen it, what is your opinion of the call?

While it 'may' have been, by rule, the correct call, I think it should have been a no-call.

I know, if it was by rule correct (I'm not completely convinced it was), how could a no-call be justified?  Well, if the offensive player had caught the ball and jammed it as if it had been an oop, would it have been waved off?  I'd bet my house the answer would be NO. To me, that makes it a BS call.

Lastly, I find it absurd that it is not reviewable because its a judgment call?  Hell, aren't they all?

[Tnphil]

Bad way to lose a game. The ball had NO CHANCE of going in. I thought the ball had to be in the cylinder of the rim which that wasn't IMO. But all the talking heads said it was the correct call. It's a shame it was on a 3 point shot.

[Be-the-Vol]

I saw a highlight from the after game press conference with the player that got called for the goaltending, and he was devastated.  Good call or bad, I feel really bad for that kid.   

[VOLMAN]

the ball was not over the cylinder, the shot was off and went to the right of the cylinder.....tough but as long as humans are involved there will be such calls.   

[Stogie Vol]

It doesn't matter about the cylinder in this situation.  The elements that are critical are if the ball was on its downward path (yes) and if it would have hit the rim (No, imho).  It appears to me that a portion of the ball was below the rim when the SMU player touched it.  I guess it could be debated whether or not the ball would have skimmed the rim, but I would have liked to see a no call in that situation.

I believe the intent of the rule is to allow all possible chances for the ball to go in, i.e. the ball possibly bouncing up off the rim and subsequently going in. This wasn't going to happen in any shape or form.

[Clockwork Orange]

Bad call. The ball was going beside the rim when it was touched, but you could really only see that from one camera angle.

And actually this is the part that aggravates me the most . . . the ref who called it had the worst possible angle to make that call. From his side he could not tell if the ball was in the cylinder or two feet out of it and the guy in the best position to see it-- behind the backboard-- did not blow his whistle.

SMU was jobbed. I feel awful for that kid.

[Creek Walker]

I may be the only person outside L.A. who doesn't have a problem with the call. It was an unfortunate call, especially at that point in the game, but it wasn't a bad call. The player jumped above the rim and snatched the ball out of the air. I don't think I've seen a video angle that proves conclusively that the ball wouldn't have touched the rim. The rule doesn't provide exceptions for balls that aren't over or in the cylinder. The fault is on the player -- and, to his credit, he has shouldered the blame.

[Clockwork Orange]

The first thing that came to mind after that was this play, which is not much different:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICZ8HO8c9bw

That ball was clearly short but I thought this ball was clearly wide/long.

[VOLMAN]

It doesn't matter about the cylinder in this situation.  The elements that are critical are if the ball was on its downward path (yes) and if it would have hit the rim (No, imho).  It appears to me that a portion of the ball was below the rim when the SMU player touched it.  I guess it could be debated whether or not the ball would have skimmed the rim, but I would have liked to see a no call in that situation.

I believe the intent of the rule is to allow all possible chances for the ball to go in, i.e. the ball possibly bouncing up off the rim and subsequently going in. This wasn't going to happen in any shape or form.

"over the cylinder" I was attempting to state, as you did, that it was not going to contact the rim...it appeared clear to me that the ball had already gone beyond the rim and, as you stated, the lowest part of the ball had gone below rim level.     

[JeffCountyVolFan]

To me, it seems that whether or not the ball would have hit the rim (and was therefore inside/outside of the cylinder) depends totally on the angle from which you view the replay. Having said that, I don't see how a review could have overturned the original call. The official who made the call had the worst possible view of that situation and probably thought the ball was on a more direct path to the rim than what really happened.

What really baffles me is that the call is not reviewable. I realize that if every call was reviewable it would take forever to play the end of a game, but this is a situation that I think should be reviewable. The argument that judgment calls aren't reviewable doesn't hold water because everything is a judgment (that's why officials make mistakes).

Case in point - UT lost a game near the season's end due to a review of a ball being tipped out of bounds (was it the Ole Miss game). The original call gave us the ball with the lead, as I remember. The play was reviewed and overturned - an error, in my judgment, but maybe I see it through orange colored glasses. The point is, a judgment call was reviewed.

I really think that this may lead to a review of the replay rule for these plays in the future - or at least it should.

[JeffCountyVolFan]

On NCAA Tip-Off on truTV just a few moments ago John Adams, NCAA National Coordinator of Officiating, said that this situation may cause review rules to be changed for situations like this.

He also mentioned that the only judgment call that is reviewable, under current rules, is the last touch of a ball out of bounds.

[Tnphil]

On NCAA Tip-Off on truTV just a few moments ago John Adams, NCAA National Coordinator of Officiating said that this situation may cause review rules to be changed for situations like this.

It should.....When you have a season ending situation it should be reviewed. IMO if that had been reviewed and they did their job upon review....it would have been overturned.

[73Volgrad]

If that had been UCLA blocking the shot by SMU, how many really believe that UCLA would have been called for goaltending? IMO it would have been no call because these refrees want to call NCAA tourney games next year. UCLA was always been protected during the Wooden years and they have been protected since they returned to NCAA tourney.  IMO they will always get the call in the game if it means they advance.

[JeffCountyVolFan]

If that had been UCLA blocking the shot by SMU, how many really believe that UCLA would have been called for goaltending? IMO it would have been no call because these refrees want to call NCAA tourney games next year. UCLA was always been protected during the Wooden years and they have been protected since they returned to NCAA tourney.  IMO they will always get the call in the game if it means they advance.

I don't know if I agree, but I absolutely believe that if it had been a UCLA player (or an offensive player for any team for that matter) who had gone up, grabbed the ball, and stuffed it that it would have been allowed to count. Like CO said earlier, I thought of Jimmy V's NC State victory - yeah, I know that shot was woefully short.