2018-19 Elsewhere in NCAA Basketball Thread

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I only saw the last few plays of the game, and was impressed by how badly the announcers (wasn't one of them Vitale?) could repeatedly watch the very clear replay and opine that it was a good basket because the ball was
"off the rim." They must've shown it five times, clear as a bell the ball was in the cylinder...

I agree - they totally missed the rule, which really isn't that complicated of a rule. And they had plenty of time to explain it. I almost felt bad for Kentucky. Then I believe I saw Alleva smugly high fiving the LSU players after the game.

Then in the Duke game the announcers never took any time to explain the rule about whether a player being under the basket when taking a charge is reviewable. Obviously it was, but some discussion of the topic would have been helpful, as that rule is less obvious (at least to me) than the one about touching the ball in the cylinder.

[Tooold]

Actually, Vitale was even worse than that in LSU game...besides proclaiming that the ball was out of the cylinder (although he equivocated on that), he also said that the officials were reviewing both aspects of the shot...whether it beat the buzzer AND whether it was goal tending. The announcers then led the audience to believe that the replay upheld both decisions, when in fact there is no review allowed of the offensive interference call. There is really no excuse for the announcers to have so little understanding of the rules.

[SavDukeGrad]

I wonder if Kentucky fans have started threatening the officials from last night’s game yet? You know, or trying to ruin their businesses.

[BandAlum83]

I only saw the last few plays of the game, and was impressed by how badly the announcers (wasn't one of them Vitale?) could repeatedly watch the very clear replay and opine that it was a good basket because the ball was
"off the rim." They must've shown it five times, clear as a bell the ball was in the cylinder...

I'm not convinced. The above the rim shot comes from an angle that makes the ball appear to be in the cylinder. The view from other angles made it appear the ball was 3/4 outside the cylinder, on it's way out completely, and definitely off the rim.

[rasputin]

I'm not convinced. The above the rim shot comes from an angle that makes the ball appear to be in the cylinder. The view from other angles made it appear the ball was 3/4 outside the cylinder, on it's way out completely, and definitely off the rim.

Isn't 1% inside the cylinder enough?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Isn't 1% inside the cylinder enough?

actually, if it's above the rim, I think 1% outside is enough. Many many balls like that get dunked back in, and no one even thinks about goal tending.

[BandAlum83]

actually, if it's above the rim, I think 1% outside is enough. Many many balls like that get dunked back in, and no one even thinks about goal tending.

I don't know what the "offical" threshold is, but 3/4 outside the cylinder is typically OK to touch, it seems from years of basketball watching.

And good point, are put back dunks ever really scrutinized for offensive interference?

[Ian]

The criteria is pretty simple, if a defensive player knocks the ball off the rim at that moment, would you consider it goaltending on the defense, if you would, then the offensive player putting it back in at that exact moment is committing offense goaltending.

To me that ball was still in the cylinder and it was an obvious offensive goaltending.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The criteria is pretty simple, if a defensive player knocks the ball off the rim at that moment, would you consider it goaltending on the defense, if you would, then the offensive player putting it back in at that exact moment is committing offense goaltending.

To me that ball was still in the cylinder and it was an obvious offensive goaltending.

In theory, you may be right, and maybe the test is where are the player's hands - inside or outside the cylinder...either way; talk to me about put back dunks. I say a lot of put back dunks are done in similar situations and no one every mentions goaltending. Am I missing something here?

[Phredd3]

In other news, Penn State fans stormed the court after beating Michigan. The stands were about two thirds empty for the game...kind of an odd juxtaposition.

Yeah, I'm not sure that even counts as a court storming. Maybe EF0.

[Reddevil]

While the announcers were jabbering and the refs were reviewing, I was frantically googling basket interference. I was thinking, "Did they change the rules?" I was relieved when it was finally disclosed as an error that is not reviewable. Tough break. Glad it did not happen in the dance. The Tennessee game this weekend right after Duke/State should be terrific.

[Phredd3]

In theory, you may be right, and maybe the test is where are the player's hands - inside or outside the cylinder...either way; talk to me about put back dunks. I say a lot of put back dunks are done in similar situations and no one every mentions goaltending. Am I missing something here?

Article 2. Basket interference
a. Basket interference occurs when a player:
1. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while this ball is on or within the basket;
2. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base;
3. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder;
4. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position, or
5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is in the cylinder.

The "ring" referred to, of course, is what most of us call the "rim". The rule goes on to explain that follow-through does not count if you are legally touching the ball before it enters the cylinder (so that dunks, etc. are legal).

There is a great deal of leeway generally given on follow up dunks, but I generally do see the rule enforced if there is the slightest bit of doubt about whether the initial shot would have gone in. Or to put it in the negative, if the ball clearly won't go in anyway, but is still technically slightly within the cylinder, I have generally have NOT seen the rule enforced, whether offensively or defensively. I think that's the custom the announcers the other night were trying to rely on, but that custom is not part of the actual rule.

Strictly following the rules, that was clear basket interference.

[-jk]

actually, if it's above the rim, I think 1% outside is enough. Many many balls like that get dunked back in, and no one even thinks about goal tending.

Nope - it has to be 100% outside the cylinder. It's often hard to see from the court, but most of them are called.

Kentucky was robbed! (And, well, I love it!)

-jk

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is a great deal of leeway generally given on follow up dunks......Strictly following the rules, that was clear basket interference.

Well, part A was my main point....in spite of point B - and I'm thinking that if that ball is dunked in, which he likely would have done except he didn't want to still be touching the ball at the buzzer....then I don't think there is nearly this much controversy.

Strictly following the rules is something that very often doesn't come close to happening with the officiating in any given game.

[Ian]

Most put back dunks actually are of balls that are off the rim, it's just hard to tell on TV, sometimes there is a ball that is mostly off the rim (75%+) that sometimes the refs will let go. But last night that ball was still 50% in the cylinder and it was an obvious goaltend.

[JetpackJesus]

Article 2. Basket interference
a. Basket interference occurs when a player:
1. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while this ball is on or within the basket;
2. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base;
3. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it enters the cylinder;
4. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position, or
5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is in the cylinder.

The "ring" referred to, of course, is what most of us call the "rim". The rule goes on to explain that follow-through does not count if you are legally touching the ball before it enters the cylinder (so that dunks, etc. are legal).

There is a great deal of leeway generally given on follow up dunks, but I generally do see the rule enforced if there is the slightest bit of doubt about whether the initial shot would have gone in. Or to put it in the negative, if the ball clearly won't go in anyway, but is still technically slightly within the cylinder, I have generally have NOT seen the rule enforced, whether offensively or defensively. I think that's the custom the announcers the other night were trying to rely on, but that custom is not part of the actual rule.

Strictly following the rules, that was clear basket interference.

I was going to post the rule for two reasons:

(1) Art. 2(a)(2) makes it clear that basket interference occurs if the ball is touched while any part of it is in the cylinder. So if you look at just the LSU component of the play, the shot shouldn't count.
(2) BUT, UK may well have committed goaltending before that point based on Art 2(a)(5). One UK player has his hand through the bottom of the hoop hitting the inside of the rim (he doesn't touch the ball so 3 doesn't apply) causing the rim to move, but it's very hard to tell if the ball was on the backboard when he was contacting the rim. But a second UK player slapped the backboard, and it does look like he did that while the ball was on the backboard.
LSU-UK.JPG LSU-UK 2.JPG LSU-UK 3.JPG
Sorry these are so dark, but the video I have dims when you pause it. The first two screens are taken with 1.0 showing on the game clock attached to the back of the stanchion (I cut it out by mistake when grabbing the screens). That frame is pretty much the moment the ball contacts the backboard. The third image is taken just after the ball has already come off the backboard. There's 0.9 on the clock in this frame, and you can see the UK player's hand just coming off the board at the same time the ball is beginning it's downward trajectory after hitting the backboard.

Of course, I don't think I've ever seen Art. 2(a)(5) enforced, but if we're being technical about it, UK goaltended before LSU's basket interference.

Now no one needs to feel like they should feel bad for Kentucky.

[-jk]

I suspect the hand up the net would have been ruled "inadvertent" as it was over well before the ball dropped. The missed offensive interference will likely shame the refs through a post-season blackball (the only thing the NCAA can actually wield).

-jk

[devildeac]

I was going to post the rule for two reasons:

(1) Art. 2(a)(2) makes it clear that basket interference occurs if the ball is touched while any part of it is in the cylinder. So if you look at just the LSU component of the play, the shot shouldn't count.
(2) BUT, UK may well have committed goaltending before that point based on Art 2(a)(5). One UK player has his hand through the bottom of the hoop hitting the inside of the rim (he doesn't touch the ball so 3 doesn't apply) causing the rim to move, but it's very hard to tell if the ball was on the backboard when he was contacting the rim. But a second UK player slapped the backboard, and it does look like he did that while the ball was on the backboard.
LSU-UK.JPG LSU-UK 2.JPG LSU-UK 3.JPG
Sorry these are so dark, but the video I have dims when you pause it. The first two screens are taken with 1.0 showing on the game clock attached to the back of the stanchion (I cut it out by mistake when grabbing the screens). That frame is pretty much the moment the ball contacts the backboard. The third image is taken just after the ball has already come off the backboard. There's 0.9 on the clock in this frame, and you can see the UK player's hand just coming off the board at the same time the ball is beginning it's downward trajectory after hitting the backboard.

Of course, I don't think I've ever seen Art. 2(a)(5) enforced, but if we're being technical about it, UK goaltended before LSU's basket interference.

Now no one needs to feel like they should feel bad for Kentucky.

Thank you for the shots supporting a point I made either in the "Jinx" thread and/or somewhere upthread in this discussion. I clearly saw the UK player with his hand in the net and/or through the rim but couldn't tell for sure at what point the shot had been taken. I missed the backboard slap completely.

[TruBlu]

Next year goaltending will likely be reviewable in the final 2 minutes of games. Just a hunch.

[JetpackJesus]

Next year goaltending will likely be reviewable in the final 2 minutes of games. Just a hunch.

The biggest obstacle to that (other than the judgment call aspect), I think, is that a defensive goaltending situation does not necessarily result in a stoppage of play, which all of the other reviewable things I can think of do (I could be wrong about this, though). So do they review only when goaltending is called? What about a block that is actually an uncalled goaltend and play continues? Does the ref stop play to confirm they got it right? Maybe only called goaltends are reviewable? But that doesn't seem right.

Offensive basket interference is easier, I guess, because presumably that's only being called on a made basket. So that would be more akin to a review for a shot clock violation or whether a basket was a 2 or 3. But then it's hard to say we can review Article 2 to see if the offense violated it but not if the defense did.

I think if application of a rule is going to be subject to video review, then it should be the case that all instances where that rule applies are reviewable. I'm not sure that's feasible here, and maybe that already isn't the case for some video review situations. But I'm open to having my mind changed.