Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Big Ten Sports
  • →
  • Hoosier Sports
  • →
  • The late goal-tending call...
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
The late goal-tending call...
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 21 2016, 10:38 AM (177 Views)
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 10:38 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
It wasn't why Purdue lost, but I keep hearing a strange justification for it...and am wondering what others here think about it.

The justification I've heard on TV, several times, was that Hammons got the ball as it was going up...BUT the call was right because his hand hit the rim before he touched the ball.

Is that really the rule? I would think it doesn't matter who touches the rim while the ball is going up. But am too lazy to find the official ruling on such a play. Can anybody...perhaps with officiating experience, shine some light on that?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 21 2016, 11:40 AM Post #2
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,824
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 10:38 AM
It wasn't why Purdue lost, but I keep hearing a strange justification for it...and am wondering what others here think about it.

The justification I've heard on TV, several times, was that Hammons got the ball as it was going up...BUT the call was right because his hand hit the rim before he touched the ball.

Is that really the rule? I would think it doesn't matter who touches the rim while the ball is going up. But am too lazy to find the official ruling on such a play. Can anybody...perhaps with officiating experience, shine some light on that?
Couple things --

you can't touch the rim to gain an advantage (doesn't matter whether it is in intentional or unintentional). Seems pretty clear that timing wise he couldn't block the ball before it hit the backboard without going through the rim. Rule in NCAA is that once the ball hits the backboard above the rim, the ball is considered to be on it's downward flight regardless of whether or not it is in fact it is.

The camera view behind the basket clearly shows that the backboard was shook by the contact with the rim and it certainly looks like the ball would have hit the backboard before Hammons got to it. So, in that case, it would seem like Hammons clearly gained an advantage by touching the rim. So, if we want to get technical with it, they could have made the call in which a player touches the rim to gain an advantage....which is a technical foul. People can site that 'hey, by rules it's not a goaltend' but there is clearly a rule that can result in a technical foul. The call that makes sense is a goal tend.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 21 2016, 11:46 AM Post #3
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,071
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Honestly, in the end I think the goaltend mattered. Seems pretty clear on the replay Hartman is going to get the rebound.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 21 2016, 11:57 AM Post #4
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,824
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Would have only been about 1 second for Hartman to get the rebound and shoot to beat the shot clock, though.

Think, though, it's pretty telling that not a single Purdue player nor CMP were complaining about the goal tend when it was called.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 12:01 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 11:40 AM
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 10:38 AM
It wasn't why Purdue lost, but I keep hearing a strange justification for it...and am wondering what others here think about it.

The justification I've heard on TV, several times, was that Hammons got the ball as it was going up...BUT the call was right because his hand hit the rim before he touched the ball.

Is that really the rule? I would think it doesn't matter who touches the rim while the ball is going up. But am too lazy to find the official ruling on such a play. Can anybody...perhaps with officiating experience, shine some light on that?
Couple things --

you can't touch the rim to gain an advantage (doesn't matter whether it is in intentional or unintentional). Seems pretty clear that timing wise he couldn't block the ball before it hit the backboard without going through the rim. Rule in NCAA is that once the ball hits the backboard above the rim, the ball is considered to be on it's downward flight regardless of whether or not it is in fact it is.

The camera view behind the basket clearly shows that the backboard was shook by the contact with the rim and it certainly looks like the ball would have hit the backboard before Hammons got to it. So, in that case, it would seem like Hammons clearly gained an advantage by touching the rim. So, if we want to get technical with it, they could have made the call in which a player touches the rim to gain an advantage....which is a technical foul. People can site that 'hey, by rules it's not a goaltend' but there is clearly a rule that can result in a technical foul. The call that makes sense is a goal tend.
Okay, the technical foul would have been the call I would agree with. I actually hadn't thought of that.

One free throw for IU and they get the ball out-of-bounds with 7 seconds left. Probably a worse scenario for Purdue, but that's the call I think would've been correct. Though I can see how calling that would have stirred a ton of controversy.

The goal-tending just doesn't make sense IMO because the ball didn't touch the backboard and the shot (many believe) never reached its apex.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 12:02 PM Post #6
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 11:57 AM
Would have only been about 1 second for Hartman to get the rebound and shoot to beat the shot clock, though.

Think, though, it's pretty telling that not a single Purdue player nor CMP were complaining about the goal tend when it was called.
Painter said in the press conference that Hammons made a good play.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 21 2016, 12:21 PM Post #7
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,824
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 12:02 PM
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 11:57 AM
Would have only been about 1 second for Hartman to get the rebound and shoot to beat the shot clock, though.

Think, though, it's pretty telling that not a single Purdue player nor CMP were complaining about the goal tend when it was called.
Painter said in the press conference that Hammons made a good play.
He didn't argue a bit about it when it occurred, which is what I stated. I'm also sure Painter hadn't seen a replay of it at that point with Hammons hitting the rim.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 12:27 PM Post #8
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 12:21 PM
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 12:02 PM
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 11:57 AM
Would have only been about 1 second for Hartman to get the rebound and shoot to beat the shot clock, though.

Think, though, it's pretty telling that not a single Purdue player nor CMP were complaining about the goal tend when it was called.
Painter said in the press conference that Hammons made a good play.
He didn't argue a bit about it when it occurred, which is what I stated. I'm also sure Painter hadn't seen a replay of it at that point with Hammons hitting the rim.
From the Indy Star:

"We watched it on film and it looked like a clean block," Painter said. "Obviously I'm going to say that, but I'm pretty objective as a coach after I watch things. The thing I like a lot about the play was, he made a good play."

He didn't comment on the rim contact, but did say Hammons made a good play. Painter rarely protests a call on the scene...which is disturbing to some of us.

FWIW, I think the call was made because it was believed that Ferrell's shot had reached its apex....and it was close. I really don't think the official...or anyone other than Hammons himself, was aware of the rim contact at the moment it happened. (Just my opinion from watching the play in my living room of course)
Edited by BoilerVision, Feb 21 2016, 12:29 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dedicatedIUfan Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM Post #9
Coach
Posts:
8,724
Group:
Members
Member
#93
Joined:
February 7, 2008
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dçamden03 Feb 21 2016, 03:11 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
24,523
Group:
Members
Member
#8
Joined:
February 4, 2008
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
The third foul on Hammons was a joke. Complete flop by Biefeldt and contact that happens 100s a times a game.
“He’s always been a guy — maybe to a fault — he would always try to do what I said. That seems like something simple in coaching, but those are the guys I hang my hat on. We’ve had some guys in our program, we had a couple guys that felt I had a bias towards E’Twaun Moore. And they were right — I do have a bias towards E’Twaun Moore. I like guys that go to class, that are academic All-Americans, that come early, that stay late, that love the game of basketball. I am biased towards those guys. And I’m biased towards Rob Hummel. But I’m also biased towards their habits, their work ethic, and how they carry themselves."

"I’d take him to the ends of the earth — I’d want him playing for me.” - Bo Ryan on Robbie Hummel

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Feb 21 2016, 04:15 PM Post #11
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,071
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
dçamden03
Feb 21 2016, 03:11 PM
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
The third foul on Hammons was a joke. Complete flop by Biefeldt and contact that happens 100s a times a game.
He didn't flop any more than any other player trying to draw a charge call. This contact didn't happen int he lane where centers usually collide while trying to establish position. Biefeldt set up to take a charge and Hammons ran right into him. Fact is, Hammons had just gotten scored on. Looked like he wanted to give Biefeldt a little shove. It was an incredibly stupid play by Hammons.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 21 2016, 04:59 PM Post #12
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,824
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
Just because they didn't get anything from Davis doesn't mean that you would normally expect more from Mathias. Even after yesterday, Davis is hitting a higher percentage of his threes than Mathias. Dakota's also reached double figures in exactly two times this year.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 05:00 PM Post #13
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
Totally agree.

I just wanted to discuss what the proper call should have been, based on the justifications that BTN and ESPN have claimed (that the ball was going up, but touching the rim is "automatically" goaltending)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Feb 21 2016, 05:30 PM Post #14
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,824
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 05:00 PM
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
Totally agree.

I just wanted to discuss what the proper call should have been, based on the justifications that BTN and ESPN have claimed (that the ball was going up, but touching the rim is "automatically" goaltending)
IU fans haven't cared about anythnig Dakich has said for years. I would think Purdue fans wouldn't as well.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoilerVision Feb 21 2016, 06:05 PM Post #15
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,482
Group:
Members
Member
#273
Joined:
June 20, 2008
brumdog44
Feb 21 2016, 05:30 PM
BoilerVision
Feb 21 2016, 05:00 PM
dedicatedIUfan
Feb 21 2016, 01:28 PM
Nonetheless, it was just a judgement call that happens all the time in those situations. I personally don't think the refs could even see Hammons make contact with the rim in realtime. I think the plays the could have possibly changed the game, IMO was Hammons 2nd and fourth foul calls. The second was a phantom call and the 4th was a judgement call, which should have been a play on. Plus, Painter should have played Mathias more too. You guys need shooters on the floor to open up the inside and you didn't get shit from Davis.
Totally agree.

I just wanted to discuss what the proper call should have been, based on the justifications that BTN and ESPN have claimed (that the ball was going up, but touching the rim is "automatically" goaltending)
IU fans haven't cared about anythnig Dakich has said for years. I would think Purdue fans wouldn't as well.
It wasn't just him. Dave Revsine said the same thing on The Finale, and I also heard it on ESPNews...but wasn't paying enough attention to notice who it was.

But, on that note, I don't know why they keep putting him on the IU-Purdue games. I'm pretty sure both fanbases would vote strongly against it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Hoosier Sports · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 3:31 AM Jul 11
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy