Thoughts on the Bama Game

Cougar Basketball
62

Too soon.

1 Like
63

It wasn’t goal tending. Watch the replay from behind the backboard and try to watch it without your Houston fan shades on.

64

If it’s over ANY part of the cylinder it’s goaltending
 That was goaltending by the letter of the law


3 Likes
65

it was 100% goal tending, it was coming fown and it was going to hit the rim
that is goal tending

goaltending doesnt only count when it loks like its going in, and it not does it need to be in the cylinder

7 Likes
66

Can’t actually tell for sure if it’s even going to hit the rim.

67

“In basketball, goaltending refers to a rules violation in which a player interferes with a shot by touching the ball on its downward flight to the basket OR while it is over, on, or within the rim of the basket.”

Notice the “or.”

If it’s on the way down OR over the cylinder, it’s goal tending.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if it was going to go in or not, just over the cylinder.

Even if the ball is going to just graze the outside of the rim, you have to wait for it to touch the rim before trying to rebound or block it.

3 Likes
68

here is a slowmo angle of that same shot
 by someone arguing it wasnt goal tending, it was clearly going to hit the rim
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1469903725267406853

the common counters arguments are

  1. its not goaltending if the shots was clearly not going to go in. tthe shot was likely to miss, but hitting the rim you have no certainty in which way it’ll bounce
 that shot was likely to miss, but it was still goaltending

  2. not in the cylinder, cylinder conversations only matte after it hits the rim, for shots it just needs to be heading down and towards the rim/bucket

let me be clear im not saying thats why we lost like others, if bama never goes for block there, they win
 but that was 100% goaltendings

4 Likes
69

It was on its way down. Doesn’t matter if it hits the rim or not. IMO, it meets both scenarios. It was not called (along with several other plays), so move on?

2 Likes
70

Nope. We play for 40 minutes

71

No doubt these refs came with the mindset that they were going to do whatever they could to help Bama win! There’s no doubt about that! Whether they got paid I’m not sure, maybe they thought because Bama is a big-time program and it was their job to give Bama all the favoritism that they need to win the game. Sort of like when the Rockets play the Lakers, the refs never officiate the game fairly, we all know that!

They will stop short at completely giving the game away to Bama, for Bama still has to hit the free throws and make the shots with the possessions that the refs gave them, but no doubt these refs came into the game with a mindset that they were going to disrupt the Coogs’ momentum and handicap them with foul calls while allowing Bama to hurt our offense by letting them foul us with little to no consequences. That’s a massive advantage for any team to have over another!

It’s hard to win a game when the refs allow your opponent to foul you at will, but call you for every defensive effort you try to put on your opponents. Notice every time the Coogs were about to take the lead or add onto the lead the refs called a foul against them, especially when the Coogs’ defense was causing Bama players to miss shots. Those refs weren’t in there to officiate the game they were in there to orchestrate the outcome of the game for Bama! It was like they were Bama’s own refs, hired and trained by Bama’s staff on how to officiate the game in Bama’s favor without completely giving away the rigging that was taking place! It was like playing a game in which the refs gave the Cooks’ opponent a 35 points lead!

Is it a wonder when Bama’s coach Nate Oats got angry and went after the refs when the refs were starting to call a few foul calls against his team? He got so used to the refs cheating for his team he expected them to do that for his team from start to finish! He was like: “Do your damn job refs! Make sure we win!” I could tell he was angry at the refs at the last minute or so because they didn’t completely rig the game for him and allowed the Coogs to have a small chance at victory and that angered him because he felt it was their job to make sure his team would win. They ultimately did “win,” but it was too close for his liking!

1 Like
72

I had not thought about the point that it is on the way down as well. I was thinking it had bounced off the rim but you’re right, it is a tip-in attempt still on the way down.

2 Likes
73

After reading the NCAA verbiage, I don’t think it’s goaltending. There’s a dependent clause in the rule that the ball has the possibility of “entering the basket” that must be met to qualify as goaltending. I don’t think the possibility of the ball being scored exists so strangely enough it was the right call. Rules should allow the play to be reviewed to confirm tho.

1 Like
74

that why i noted hitting the rim was important
 if was going to hit the rim, and you have no guarantee which way itll bounce

most goaltending calls, if you review it, the ball wasnt going to go in “likely” similar to this one

smu was eliminated from the ncaa tourney on an identical play, where the ball wasnt going to go in, but it was going to hit the rim
goaltending was called, smu lost

either us or smu are required an apology

3 Likes
75

I think “possibility of entering the basket” is a judgement call. No way they could make a well founded judgment call during live action. I think everyone feels better if they were able to just review it call or no call.

1 Like
76

agreed
some people have apprehension about how this would “slow the game down”, or how multiple plays could happen after before a stoppage to check
 a simple solution to this would be all end of game plays are reviewable for all things but fouls 
 i think that would make everyone happy

2 Likes
77

I thought of this game, after the Alabama game

Good recall.

78

Keep trying to justify yourself. The player is not “allowed” to do what he did. It is 100% goal tending. His/the bama player went for it. His instincts made his make that play. The ball was on its way down.
We got robbed. You as a bama fan or other type of fan might not think so. That is your prerogative.

For anybody else about what was the deciding factor:
one plus one equal two right?
That “non called” goal tending is the difference in the game. The live difference that is.

4 Likes
79

That’s exactly right, Pesik. Either the ref was right during that game, or right during ours
one or the other, but not both.

1 Like
80

Agree, but I thought that was already the rule.

Goaltending aside, there was the issue of game time and that is definitely reviewable.

1 Like