I wanted to start a new thread on this discussion from yesterday, just another perspective. I was curious as to what the call would have been if the offensive player had tipped the ball in. Would that have been disallowed? Logic would lead you to believe that would be the call but I don't think logic would have been applied.
Goaltending/Basket Interference
- Thread starter ukbear
- Start date
First of all, I don't think it was goaltending. The rule states the ball has to be on it's downward flight, entirely above the rim, and has the possibility of going in. The first two conditions were satisfied, but clearly that ball had zero chance of going in. At best, it grazes the iron and isn't close to going in. It's very interesting that the slot official, who had the best angle of the shot being wide of the rim, did NOT make the goal tending call. The trail official made the call and I'd argue from his angle he didn't have the perspective that the ball was going to be wide of the hoop. At any rate, it's a tough call to make in real time, so you've got to cut them some slack.
In terms of basket interference, if the offensive player touches the ball while it is on the rim or within the cylinder, it's basket interference. So if he touched it similarly to the defensive player in this instance, it is very close as to whether that ball was actually within the cylinder. A fraction of the ball may have been inside the cylinder, but it's hard to tell. Most of the time, on rebound dunks for example, the refs are a bit lenient unless it's obvious the ball is well inside the cylinder.
In terms of basket interference, if the offensive player touches the ball while it is on the rim or within the cylinder, it's basket interference. So if he touched it similarly to the defensive player in this instance, it is very close as to whether that ball was actually within the cylinder. A fraction of the ball may have been inside the cylinder, but it's hard to tell. Most of the time, on rebound dunks for example, the refs are a bit lenient unless it's obvious the ball is well inside the cylinder.
If its going to hit the rim its got to be goaltending because the last thing you want is a ref making a judgement call if it had a chance to go in or not.
It's one of the calls the ref probably got it right, but you hate it because it really doesn't have a chance to go in. The kid just needed to let it go.
Maybe so, but clearly the slot ref didn't think it was going in because he didn't come up with a goal tending whistle. By your line of thinking, the rule should be changed to say "has a possibility of hitting the rim" instead of "a possibility of going in."
The definition of basket interference in the NCAA rulebook. It comes under Rule 9, Section 17, Article 2:
The ref is making a judgement call on if he thinks (most) blocked shots are goal tending or not based on him judging whether he thinks the ball is on it's way down or not. Nearly every charge/block call is a judgement. In this case, he was making a judgement call on if he thought it would hit the rim. There is always a judgment call being made.
I think we've had a number of alley-oop dunks this year that might have hit the side of the rim if not caught.
Biggest beef that I have with the whole call. He had no business making it as from his point of view all he could see was that the ball was indeed still above the rim. I honestly question whether the ball would have hit the rim. The Slo-mo I ran show the defenders hand to be on the far side of the rim meaning the ball had already passed the front of the rim before he got his hand on the ball. From my perspective he did nothing more than go up and grab a ball that was shot off to the right and long. The official with the best angle never even considered a goal tending call and frankly should have overturned the other officials call. Sucks to lose a game on a shot that had zero chance going in.
Similar threads
