That ball was still touching the rim, GOAL TENDING, period.
Sunday calls..
- Thread starter Heeelz46
- Start date
That ball was still touching the rim, GOAL TENDING, period.
Yes I've watched that play a few times and I have no clue what people are seeing. The ball was still on the rim pretty clearly. And even if one could try and argue it was barely off at worst it's a very very close judgement call that is well within the realm of human error without bringing conspiracies into play.
The less complaining about the refs, the better IMO. That goes for any sport, and any team's message board. Bad calls are always made, but over the course of the game the calls tend to even out. In a 35-40 game season there are maybe 1-2 games a year that the refs end up swaying. Any more than that, and you're essentially insinuating the refs have a bias against your team. And I just don't buy any of that conspiratorial talk.
If you believe the refs are fair, logic follows your team must be benefitting from the refs as many games as they are hurt. You'll notice the people who complain about the refs will never acknowledge these beneficial games though.
As fans we tend to notice mostly the calls that go against us. So I try to check the bias at the door and admit my own eyes will deceive me, and that UNC is not being harmed by the refs. I think the closest game to being called unfairly for us this year was the Clemson game, but overall I'd say we've gotten a fair shake in every game this year.
If you believe the refs are fair, logic follows your team must be benefitting from the refs as many games as they are hurt. You'll notice the people who complain about the refs will never acknowledge these beneficial games though.
As fans we tend to notice mostly the calls that go against us. So I try to check the bias at the door and admit my own eyes will deceive me, and that UNC is not being harmed by the refs. I think the closest game to being called unfairly for us this year was the Clemson game, but overall I'd say we've gotten a fair shake in every game this year.
Heck with all this! We got bigger fish to fry!
Seriously. Let the UK fans stew on this one, we're on to Arizona.
Lol believe me their stewing or melting down take your pick.
Funny. We've both watched the same replay and my eyes tell me part of the ball was still in the cylinder. Amazing how there aren't more disagreements on this board.
CC
OT - I just rewatched the clip and it occurs to me that there is an easier way to tell if it was in the cylinder. Maths! I'd assume (maybe incorrectly) that there is a formula that would tell you for any circle (basketball) if you drew a line from point of contact on the rim thru the center of the circle there would be a particular angle at which the entire ball would be out of the cylinder. Can any math wizes out there confirm my hunch?
Last edited:
Sorry to belabor the goal tend but I'm late seeing this thread.
Seems to me that back in the old days the rule of thumb (if not an actual rule) was that the ball had to have a chance to go in for goal tending to be called.
Because that's subjective (or at least more subjective than a lot of calls) we got rules like the one about pinning it against the backboard to take the guesswork out of some interference instances.
I don't have the game recorded to replay it (is there a link?) but my clearest recollection is this:
1. The ball was not in direct physical contact with the rim when touched.
2. Maybe 5% of the ball was still in the cylinder.
3. Unless we change the laws of physics, the ball had no chance of going in.
Based on #2, goal tending was technically the correct call. But a no call would have been the better basketball call.
Seems to me that back in the old days the rule of thumb (if not an actual rule) was that the ball had to have a chance to go in for goal tending to be called.
Because that's subjective (or at least more subjective than a lot of calls) we got rules like the one about pinning it against the backboard to take the guesswork out of some interference instances.
I don't have the game recorded to replay it (is there a link?) but my clearest recollection is this:
1. The ball was not in direct physical contact with the rim when touched.
2. Maybe 5% of the ball was still in the cylinder.
3. Unless we change the laws of physics, the ball had no chance of going in.
Based on #2, goal tending was technically the correct call. But a no call would have been the better basketball call.
Thanks for reminding us of this. That's how it looked to me, as well. Good play by Nate "rewarded" by a wrong call, and then going to the bench. What's worse, some here will only remember that Nate committed a foul and that will feed their dislike of him when he actually made a good play.
Youtube "Bam goaltend" and you will easily find a replay.
1 - ball is rolling off the rim but still in contact
2- reply angle is not the best but it does appear to me to still be partially in the cylinder
3 - 100% true
By the rule only points 1 or 2 need to be true for basket interference to be the correct call.
CC
Thanks for the search tip. I didn't find anything on Youtube but I did finally stumble across video here: http://www.nationofblue.com/that-looked-like-a-bad-call-against-kentucky/
Sorry for linking that site but I thought others might want to take a look.
You are correct, it looks like the ball was probably in contact with the rim when Bam touches it. But clearly had zero chance to go in.
I know the rule wins out, but I hate it in cases like this. It's like blaming the owner of a parked car for the accident when another car runs into it - because the parking meter had expired.
I think we're seeing the same thing --- the ball was touching the outside of the rim --- it's just a matter of definition.Funny. We've both watched the same replay and my eyes tell me part of the ball was still in the cylinder. Amazing how there aren't more disagreements on this board.
CC
OT - I just rewatched the clip and it occurs to me that there is an easier way to tell if it was in the cylinder. Maths! I'd assume (maybe incorrectly) that there is a formula that would tell you for any circle (basketball) if you drew a line from point of contact on the rim thru the center of the circle there would be a particular angle at which the entire ball would be out of the cylinder. Can any math wizes out there confirm my hunch?
A specific formula notwithstanding, it's basic geometry that a circle can only touch a solid (in this case the side of the rim ) at a single point, and...
by the rule definition, the TOP (not the side) of the rim is the BOTTOM boundary of the cylinder extended upward...
ergo, if a ball is touching the outside surface of the SIDE (not the top) of the rim it cannot be inside the cylinder.
Now, that being said, if the ball was touching the TOP surface of the rim and any part was still inside the cylinder ABOVE that, then it is goaltending.
I don't see any mention in the rules that only the TOP of the rim is the boundary, just that the ring (rim) is the base. Sounds like the entire width of the rim counts.
CC
It's called letting off a little nervousness while waiting a whole week for the FF game. People need to vent some of that anxiety.
As for the call, it sure looks like part of the ball is in the cylinder to me.
Nope. Base means bottom boundary. Cylinder begins at the top of that. Read it again. The language is awkward but that's what it is
I don't believe that's the first moment he touched it. That WOULD have been goaltending if it was, because part of the ball is in the cylinder. It's where the ball was when he initially touched it that counts.It's called letting off a little nervousness while waiting a whole week for the FF game. People need to vent some of that anxiety.
As for the call, it sure looks like part of the ball is in the cylinder to me.
In terms of the 14-15 version of the NCAA rulebook I see this: "The cylinder is the imaginary geometric figure that has the ring as its base and is formed by the upward extension of that ring."
The only mention of the "top" of the ring is that it must be 10 ft from the floor.
CC
Either way there was a Make up call on Meeks 5 second call..
Well again, "upward extension" and "base" means that the top of the ring is thus the base of the cylinder. Even if the rim itself was part of the cylinder, a ball can't penetrate a metal rim.
Here's the bottom line --- and the way it was always explained to us in preseason rules seminars --- if any part of the ball is OVER the edge of the rim extended UPWARD, then you can't touch it.
Arch, that picture perfectly shows part of the ball in the cylinder. Goal tend. Case closed. Good job.It's called letting off a little nervousness while waiting a whole week for the FF game. People need to vent some of that anxiety.
As for the call, it sure looks like part of the ball is in the cylinder to me.
And this is how I've always understood it. Just never heard any center of the rim qualification.
CC
Did anybody happen to check in with BBN / RR on if they have an opinion on this call?
we went 7 1/2 minutes in a row with out scoring with about 10 turnovers in that period and they're complaining about the refs?
we tried to give them the game.
we tried to give them the game.
But I'm sure glad Kentucky had the ball to start the 2nd half so the arrow was pointing our way when Luke dove on that loose ball in the last minute.
