How in the hades does that call not get reviewed?

[Treadway21]

And, between Moore's final two shots, Looney had the rebound and was fouled from behind, causing him to lose the ball enabling that last shot...During the 19-0 run, Powell drove to the basket and was fould by TWO SMU players--no call...Actually there were many poor calls in SMUs favor...
But, them's the breaks--you have to play through it...

As to the goaltending--the rule isn't that it's LIKELY to go in, just that it has a chance...Balls hit front rim and the spin casuses funny bounces...so, it wasn't all that clear.
The OVERHEAD shot--directly above the basket--shows that the ball was actually at least partially in the cylinder...CLEARLY...That is enough for the Goaltending rule to apply. The call was proper--even if unfortunate for you guys...

Had we lost, I would have congratulated you guys just the same...
I was NOT "trolling"...
I posted here BEFORE the game...I was always respectful...
When I post on an opponent's board, I usually come back, win or lose...
I know it's tough for you guys to take the contrary opinion...
It's heartbreaking to lose in the tourney...especially in a game you had expected to win...
Suddenly, your season is over and it's months until Football...I get it, it sucks...

The power in my house went out this morning (nearby major construction)
...So I watched this one in a noisy, crowded bar...There were fans of lots of different teams there--even one SMU guy.
No one in the bar seemed to think the Bruins didn't deserve this one...

I am proud of my team...
They fought hard...played well most of the game (save a few minutes in that second half)...but survived that and came back at the end...
It did appear to me that SMU got more tentative after gaining a lead...and tried to milk the clock a bit...

Now, going in, some of you guys told me that SMU would play to allow the three point shots...Of course, you also told me they tend to do that and win anyway...
Seems you were partially right...You just didn't account for Bryce Alford being able to hit them...9 of 11 from three...

That said, yes, the game was razor close--it could have gone either way...But I would rather credit the players than the refs...
When you get a one-point game, almost anything going differently might have brought a different result..."Game of inches"...

That said, good luck...

You are on crack. Not even close to hitting the rim. Sadly we got jobbed once again.

[Bruin Steve]

You are on crack. Not even close to hitting the rim. Sadly we got jobbed once again.

"Once again"?? Do you feel you get "jobbed" often? Maybe it's just YOU? Just sayin'...

[mrydel]

Go away

[SMUstangs22]

You are on crack. Not even close to hitting the rim. Sadly we got jobbed once again.

"Once again"?? Do you feel you get "jobbed" often? Maybe it's just YOU? Just sayin'...

Why are you still on our board with these comments? Is your life that bad? Oh, my bad, just answered my own question...

[docabel]

The ref who made the goaltending call was 30 feet away and had the WORST angle of anyone..



You can easily see why he thought it was going in. Because he could not see it was a foot and a half right and short. That's why there are 3 refs, so they can get together and talk about something like this, where one of the other refs had a better angle on the play.

[TidePony]

Mike Reacts to NCAA Official's explanation of UCLA-SMU Ending
https://t.co/wNdBZWHfRo
#PonyUp #smumustangs #MarchMadness

[WildBillPony]

You are on crack. Not even close to hitting the rim. Sadly we got jobbed once again.

"Once again"?? Do you feel you get "jobbed" often? Maybe it's just YOU? Just sayin'...

Bruin Steve the ball has to be above the cylinder. That ball was never above the cylinder. Terrible call. Travesty that it is not reviewable.

[mrydel]

Who is that?

[SMUHeel]

Bruin guy pointing out fouls? Yanick was shoved in the back on that "goaltend" and Allford had pushed off to get space on at least 2 of his shots. Refs let stuff go on both ends but when they did decide to make a call, they decided the game.

[Mountain Mustang]

And, between Moore's final two shots, Looney had the rebound and was fouled from behind, causing him to lose the ball enabling that last shot...During the 19-0 run, Powell drove to the basket and was fould by TWO SMU players--no call...Actually there were many poor calls in SMUs favor...
But, them's the breaks--you have to play through it...

As to the goaltending--the rule isn't that it's LIKELY to go in, just that it has a chance...Balls hit front rim and the spin casuses funny bounces...so, it wasn't all that clear.
The OVERHEAD shot--directly above the basket--shows that the ball was actually at least partially in the cylinder...CLEARLY...That is enough for the Goaltending rule to apply. The call was proper--even if unfortunate for you guys...

Had we lost, I would have congratulated you guys just the same...
I was NOT "trolling"...
I posted here BEFORE the game...I was always respectful...
When I post on an opponent's board, I usually come back, win or lose...
I know it's tough for you guys to take the contrary opinion...
It's heartbreaking to lose in the tourney...especially in a game you had expected to win...
Suddenly, your season is over and it's months until Football...I get it, it sucks...

The power in my house went out this morning (nearby major construction)
...So I watched this one in a noisy, crowded bar...There were fans of lots of different teams there--even one SMU guy.
No one in the bar seemed to think the Bruins didn't deserve this one...

I am proud of my team...
They fought hard...played well most of the game (save a few minutes in that second half)...but survived that and came back at the end...
It did appear to me that SMU got more tentative after gaining a lead...and tried to milk the clock a bit...

Now, going in, some of you guys told me that SMU would play to allow the three point shots...Of course, you also told me they tend to do that and win anyway...
Seems you were partially right...You just didn't account for Bryce Alford being able to hit them...9 of 11 from three...

That said, yes, the game was razor close--it could have gone either way...But I would rather credit the players than the refs...
When you get a one-point game, almost anything going differently might have brought a different result..."Game of inches"...

That said, good luck...

Bruin Steve - Although long winded, I appreciate a lot of your post. However you're flat out wrong in your assertion about the shot being in the cylinder. Here's a pic and there's another on the thread "Don't blame the officiating" that when combined show the shot clearly had no chance to go in. I wouldn't have minded nearly as much had Alford made the shot, or had the play been allowed to continue and we lost due to UCLA getting that rebound and a putback or whatever, but when it's a call like that from that angle, it's awful to lose that way.

[Bruin Steve]

I'll come back just briefly to explain...
In that shot, first you need to realize that it is not necessarily stopped at the furtherst spot in...a split second befor or after and maybe it is off the rim...
BUT, even assuming THAT shot, the entire ball does not have to be over the cylinder...all it requires is that ANY part of the ball--even just the edge--be tangential to the rim...
And, beyond that, even if the ball is NOT over the rim, but touched while on its downward arc while above the rim, it's still goaltending...In order to invoke the exception for a shot clearly not capable of going in, it would have to be WAY farther away than this...The presumption is that if the ball is even close in trajectory to hitting the rim if not touched, it is goaltending...Balls hit rims, reverse spin and somehow find their way in...If the rules allowed you to touch the ball in this instance, it would deny those sometimes freakish makes... Players are taught to keep hands off until the ball has clearly deflected away from the rim or until they have fallen below the level of the rim...There are lots of goaltending calls on shots that aren't going in...The trick is to just keep those hands off...The kid made a mistake...It really sucks for him--but I think he knows what he did wrong...

BTW, I used to ref basketball, football and baseball in my younger days...As a ref, you don't get EVERY call right...can't do it...You just try to be consistent...and you have to call things as you see them...I'm pretty sure the ref who called this felt confident that he saw it well--well enough to make the call--ball on downward flight, headed toward the basket, touched by defensive player above the rim...The other two officials--if either had thought they'd seen anything different, would have overruled him...after conferring...But they cannot review it on tape...MOST referee calls are NOT reviewable--it's limited to clock and posession--and for good reason...Most other calls are pretty much judgment calls...Every time they blow the whistle, somebody usually has a beef...Stop it for video review every time would be excruciating...Next time a call like this happens, it might be IN your favor...
But, even if there WAS allowable video review, the rule in out of bounds plays...as well as in reviewable calls in football...is that the video evidence must be clearly to the contrary. No way ANY of the tapes of the game would have anything that would allow it to be overturned even if it were reviewable.

Bruin Steve - Although long winded, I appreciate a lot of your post. However you're flat out wrong in your assertion about the shot being in the cylinder. Here's a pic and there's another on the thread "Don't blame the officiating" that when combined show the shot clearly had no chance to go in. I wouldn't have minded nearly as much had Alford made the shot, or had the play been allowed to continue and we lost due to UCLA getting that rebound and a putback or whatever, but when it's a call like that from that angle, it's awful to lose that way.

[mrydel]

Go away

[PonyPride]

Calls went both ways...Refs were not all that bad...
That last call though, was correct...It likely would not have gone in, but you can't touch the ball on the downward slope as long as it's above the rim...Even if the ball was to only graze the rim, crazy bounces DO happen...and that IS the rule...

True, except the rule reads:

Under Rule 9.3a 1 and 2, "Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met: the ball is on the downward flight; and the ball is above the level of the ring AND HAS A POSSIBILITY OF ENTERING THE BASKET."

Not saying that call determined the outcome — there were a lot of factors — but that call was absurd.

[smusportspage]

Yes, that ball was never within or above the Cylinder.

[ojaipony]

Hey Bruin Steve, [deleted] you! I hope you get pasted by UAB.