PonyFans.com

Today (Monday) the Washington Post writer talked about the officiating in NCAA basketball, and had this interesting paragraph.

I loved the end of the SMU game if for no other reason that that it was clear that not one of the TV talking heads was absolutely sure what "goal tending" actually was. Oh, some were pretty sure. But you could tell they were all thinking, "Uh oh, I could really look stupid on this one.) The Post ran an instant online poll of readers on a simple "Yes"or "No" on the call AND we included thee entire rule and video of the call from multiple angles. After the first 1,000 responses, it was exactly 50 percent to 50 percent! I've never seen a call that -- with "Total Relevant Information" in hand was still 50-50! Must be fun to be a big-time ref -- not.

Fascinating.

geno wrote:Today (Monday) the Washington Post writer talked about the officiating in NCAA basketball, and had this interesting paragraph.

I loved the end of the SMU game if for no other reason that that it was clear that not one of the TV talking heads was absolutely sure what "goal tending" actually was. Oh, some were pretty sure. But you could tell they were all thinking, "Uh oh, I could really look stupid on this one.) The Post ran an instant online poll of readers on a simple "Yes"or "No" on the call AND we included thee entire rule and video of the call from multiple angles. After the first 1,000 responses, it was exactly 50 percent to 50 percent! I've never seen a call that -- with "Total Relevant Information" in hand was still 50-50! Must be fun to be a big-time ref -- not.

I'd like to know the geographical breakdown of those respondents.

To me that prove that you just don't make that call at that juncture in the game. At the same time, it also proves that video replay would not do anything for our cause because once the ref blew the whistle there probably was not enough evidence to overturn it. Call it bad luck.

disagree. The "reasonable chance to go in" clause would have been very easy to verify - therefore a review would have reversed the call.

The tough thing is what to do next. UCLA got rebound so their ball under our basket with about 10 seconds? would have been another interesting decision.

gostangs wrote:disagree. The "reasonable chance to go in" clause would have been very easy to verify - therefore a review would have reversed the call.

The tough thing is what to do next. UCLA got rebound so their ball under our basket with about 10 seconds? would have been another interesting decision.

Inadvertent whistle so it follows the possession arrow.

Or just call the foul on the guys whose forearm is clearing out Yanick underneath which made it look like a block as he couldn't catch with his other hand on the blatant foul

Its like The Sopranos

ponygrad90 wrote:Or just call the foul on the guys whose forearm is clearing out Yanick underneath which made it look like a block as he couldn't catch with his other hand on the blatant foul

Bingo!

ponygrad90 wrote:Or just call the foul on the guys whose forearm is clearing out Yanick underneath which made it look like a block as he couldn't catch with his other hand on the blatant foul

Yeah - I think we have the right answer here!

gostangs wrote:disagree. The "reasonable chance to go in" clause would have been very easy to verify - therefore a review would have reversed the call.

The tough thing is what to do next. UCLA got rebound so their ball under our basket with about 10 seconds? would have been another interesting decision.

Got the rebound?? Maybe a blatant over the back foul!!!!

PoconoPony wrote:

gostangs wrote:disagree. The "reasonable chance to go in" clause would have been very easy to verify - therefore a review would have reversed the call.

The tough thing is what to do next. UCLA got rebound so their ball under our basket with about 10 seconds? would have been another interesting decision.

Got the rebound?? Maybe a blatant over the back foul!!!!

If you look at the reply Looney got the rebound because Yanick tipped the ball to him on the play that was called a goaltend. No foul was committed.

Rebel10 wrote:

PoconoPony wrote:

gostangs wrote:disagree. The "reasonable chance to go in" clause would have been very easy to verify - therefore a review would have reversed the call.

The tough thing is what to do next. UCLA got rebound so their ball under our basket with about 10 seconds? would have been another interesting decision.

Got the rebound?? Maybe a blatant over the back foul!!!!

If you look at the reply Looney got the rebound because Yanick tipped the ball to him on the play that was called a goaltend. No foul was committed.

Looney was pushing Yanick in the back prior to the tipped ball. A foul was committed.

I refer everyone back to the link below. See the still on Loney with his forearm in Yanick's back, the down lower in the video clip you see the UCLA guy with his hand on Yanick's chest stopping him from going back up to get the ball he just tipped. He gets fouled by two guys. If the first one was not fouling him, very possibly he catching the ball and there is no goal tend.


http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/03/ucla-smu-was-it-goaltending-rule-goaltend-ncaa-tournament-2015

The PonyGrad wrote:

geno wrote:Today (Monday) the Washington Post writer talked about the officiating in NCAA basketball, and had this interesting paragraph.

I loved the end of the SMU game if for no other reason that that it was clear that not one of the TV talking heads was absolutely sure what "goal tending" actually was. Oh, some were pretty sure. But you could tell they were all thinking, "Uh oh, I could really look stupid on this one.) The Post ran an instant online poll of readers on a simple "Yes"or "No" on the call AND we included thee entire rule and video of the call from multiple angles. After the first 1,000 responses, it was exactly 50 percent to 50 percent! I've never seen a call that -- with "Total Relevant Information" in hand was still 50-50! Must be fun to be a big-time ref -- not.

I'd like to know the geographical breakdown of those respondents.

Most of that writer's responders come from the Maryland/Virginia/DC area.