Ball didn't bounce straight to Hartman. Nobody knows who gets it. Hammons hit the rim, not illegal, the backboard shook, not illegal....not the right call. Read the rules.
IU with the 5 point spread..........
- Thread starter PU pit bull
- Start date
Ball didn't bounce straight to Hartman. Nobody knows who gets it. Hammons hit the rim, not illegal, the backboard shook, not illegal....not the right call. Read the rules.
Get your facts straight. Ball did NOT go straight to Hartman. Mathias and Thompson were between Hartman and the ball. They stopped going after it when the whistle blew. As noted numerous time, rim touch didn't matter in this case.
Even if Hartman had caught the ball, the shot clock didn't reset and likely would have been a shot clock violation.
you mean they shot a higher percent from the 3 for however many shots they took and the point differential from normal? How many points difference was it to make it a playing better moment?
you know when you see TV Ted that whether his calls help you or hurt you...he will get some TV time.
Dakich always makes those outlandish comments, in addition, he said Yogi was a player of the year candidate, HE WASN'T EVEN ON THE WOODEN WATCH, he was a late-add, and the only reason he was added was because Dakich went on the campaign to have him added even though he wasn't even CLOSE to producing the numbers the other candidates were producing. (THE POWER OF THE MEDIA).
Other statements by Dakich this year;
1) IU is one of the best 2 teams in the big ten (what a joke) - they are who they are this year record-wise because of their cup-cake schedule
2) Yogi Ferrell -- best point guard in the nation
3) OG anunoby - green room candidate
4) Thomas Bryant - green room candidate
5) Yogi Ferrell -- great defender 2nd half of the season, wha???? he is hallucinating
6) THis guy or that guy is going to make this next shot, CLANK!!! (he has done that numerous times)
without the bad call and it was (not on rim or in cylinder) the shot clock does in fact expire. It was a bad call, but there were others and it was not the main reason Purdue loss. sure the merits of IU and Purdue playing the last 7.2 seconds in a frenzy would have been interesting, but Purdue for whatever reason was not sharp almost the whole game I could see. course I never got to see the first 25% of the game where Purdue was leading before AJ picked up two fouls...maybe Purdue was sharper earlier?
It was a bad call. Yes Hammonds' hand slapped the rim (on the video replay it's obvious), but that does not create the definition of a goal-tend according to Larry Clisby.
nor according to the current rule book. I do think years ago at least in high school here in Indiana is was goal tending, but not under the def of today in teh NCAA
I thought the charge on AJ was the game ender. Should have been an and one.
So by what you say, a player can shake the rim every time someone shoots a 3 and it's legal because the ball was in the air?
it doesn't matter what anyone says. let me help you and it doesn't matter to me whether you think it is or is not goal tending...and I do not blame Purdue losing this game to this call.
credits to Boiler-deuce for taking the time to find it
http://g-macsports.com/custompages/Governance/NCAArulebooks/Basketball_Mens_Rule_Book_2013-2015.pdf
Section 17. Basket Interference and Goaltending Art. 1. It is a violation to commit basket interference or goaltending. Art. 2. Basket interference a. Basket interference occurs when a player: 1. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket; 2-BasketballRule from JC.indd 84 8/5/2013 9:09:29 AM Rule 9 / Violations and Penalties 85 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; or 4. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. 5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder. b. The cylinder is the imaginary geometric figure that has the ring as its base and is formed by the upward extension of that ring. c. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part of the ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring. d. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, during such action, the player touches or grabs the basket. Art. 3. Goaltending. a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a fieldgoal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exceptions: Rule 10-4.1.i) 1. The ball is on its downward flight; and 2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder. b. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free throw, regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward flight. c. When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket
I'm guessing you can draw your own conclusions and again there were many plays and calls before that affected the game. I'm not stating the loss was on this incorrect call at all...just clarifying some things. Purdue needed to know the urgency as Crean was playing for a meaningful chance at the Big Title and a historical beating of Purdue without Zeller. Purdue never got the message that IU's intensity would be ramped. This was all on Purdue and I'm not blaming the goal tending miss at all.
Last edited:
Matt needs to learn the rules. He is the head coach.Wow, Matt says that if the ball is NOT on the rim adn you hit the rim or net it is NOT goal tending. Says ND was doing that last year and he told the refs down in Indy and they said it si NOT a goal tend if the ball is not on the rim. I really don't know, but I do know TV Ted made the call...
I should add that was not the rule years ago
He is correct. Perhaps you should do some research. If the shot never gets to the rim, it's not goaltending or basket interference if the defender hits the rim.
Yes as long as it's on the way up. So i guess if you have a 20' vertical. I thought you guys were smart about basketball?
rules state if the ball is within the backboard you can't vibrate or touch the goal.
you can make your own determination on what within the backboard means. it's not exactly clear.
and that is the rule for basket interference, not goaltending
you can make your own determination on what within the backboard means. it's not exactly clear.
and that is the rule for basket interference, not goaltending
you do know there is no data point of Crean beating Purdue without Zeller correct? That now is a historical marker in time...no more ...no less...
im not going to pull the rulebook... it's on this board somewhere... basket interference says within the backboard
oh. actually it says it in this thread
5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder
5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder
TV Teddy likely thought the ball either hit the backboard or was no longer on the way up... So it was a bad call.
That said, if a player "Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder" then it is basketball interference. It is likely fair to say the ball was within the backboard.
So bad call, but the right outcome? (2pts for IU)?
That said, if a player "Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder" then it is basketball interference. It is likely fair to say the ball was within the backboard.
So bad call, but the right outcome? (2pts for IU)?
in addition to the above I posted in which I think you found interest in number 5. Here is another link (high school, but most rules of this nature are the same) that is suppose to give a clearer understanding. Again, this is only for clarity...not a cause as to why Purdue loss.
http://www.sdhsaa.com/portals/0/pdfs/officials/basketball/mostmisunderstoodbasketballrules.pdf In section # 3 you will notice
"Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul."
would love to hear the definition of within the backboard. please do elucidate. This is going to be epic...
Does Valentine ever have a "good night"? It's abhorrent that he's still employed by the B1G. He's easily the worst ref out there, consistently, both ways. That game was one of the worst officiated I've watched in a long time. Missed 3 second violations for Purdue, several missed traveling calls both ways, just plain bad foul calls particularly in the post, the questionable goaltending, and, the coup de grace - The Flop.
Here's the thing, though: Hammons can get taken out of a game by poor officiating, both literally and mentally. It happens all the time with him. Things don't go his way, he gets into a funk and he takes the team down with him. We need a "top dog" who plays with energy. Davis is good for that, but he's not the straw that stirs the drink on either side of the ball, just a good individual defender. I would love to see Edwards play with some real fire... I'm just not sure I see who's going to be that igniter in the near future. Maybe Weatherford??
Here's the thing, though: Hammons can get taken out of a game by poor officiating, both literally and mentally. It happens all the time with him. Things don't go his way, he gets into a funk and he takes the team down with him. We need a "top dog" who plays with energy. Davis is good for that, but he's not the straw that stirs the drink on either side of the ball, just a good individual defender. I would love to see Edwards play with some real fire... I'm just not sure I see who's going to be that igniter in the near future. Maybe Weatherford??
"Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul."[/QUOTE]
right, but obviously the above rule i was citing is pretty clear that it CAN be basket interference if the goal is touched, it just depends on what your definition of within the backboard is.
right, but obviously the above rule i was citing is pretty clear that it CAN be basket interference if the goal is touched, it just depends on what your definition of within the backboard is.
obviously we could ask you the same thing, because again, it depends on what your definition of within the backboard.
if it meant contact with the backboard, it would probably say contact with the backboard
so your guess is as good as any of ours
There is no within the backboard. It's just an artifact of how it was written. Someone got a little too wordy with their ORs in writing the rule. Within the backboard would mean a ball in the glass, which is obviously an absurdity. Now run along and be happy with your barely a win on your home floor.
right, but obviously the above rule i was citing is pretty clear that it CAN be basket interference if the goal is touched, it just depends on what your definition of within the backboard is.[/QUOTE]
Well we know this. The ball was hit on the way up, not over the cylinder and not on the bank board and so not what might be considered an interference of a basket as it was not around the basket. Again, I do not offer this as a reason for Purdue losing...just that TV TED made that controversial call again...
Just prior to the above it also said
1. It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.
2. A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.
3. The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is contacting the ball on its downward flight, above the level of the rim, with a chance to go in. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket.
i mean it says within the basket or the backboard..
that means within the basket or within the backboard...
im not saying reese is using it as an excuse.
i am saying however, that topsecretboiler, is reading a sentence, and just ignoring what it says...
which is convenient. and you probably don't ignore any other part of the written rule
that means within the basket or within the backboard...
im not saying reese is using it as an excuse.
i am saying however, that topsecretboiler, is reading a sentence, and just ignoring what it says...
which is convenient. and you probably don't ignore any other part of the written rule
no you were definitely ignoring it.
ignoring it means you don't acknowledge that its there, which you didn't, until someone else brought it up.
ignoring it means you don't acknowledge that its there, which you didn't, until someone else brought it up.
It's the iu tuck rule. Invented on the spot to cover TV Teddy's ridiculous officiating. Show me in the history of ncaa basketball where a block has been ruled a goaltend because the ball was within the backboard. I ****ing dare you. Keep in mind he ruled a goaltend and not interference.
well obviously you can't do that because that rule applies to basket interference, and not goaltending.
how do we know it was called goaltending?
how do we know it was called goaltending?
The signal for goaltend is two fingers out with a flagging motion, signaling to count the basket, which is what TV Teddy does. Interference would have been making a ring shape out in front of his chest. Edit: It's actually in the video above in this thread if you doubt me.
You all are hilarious. Ted had no idea Hammons hit the rim....no body did until slow motion... that's a false narrative..he called goal tending not basket interference. Ted clearly thought it was goal tending. And the rule clearly states that you CAN TOUCH THE RIM in that situation. Face it...it was a bad call. We played poorly, but that was a bad call. I've posted the link and highlighted the rule. I can't make it any more simple. It was a blown call.
You'd actually have to get so much higher than that to hit the rim and block a 3 point attempt on an upward trajectory. Because, if it's on the way down, it's goal tending, not basket interference...no matter if you hit the rim, backboard or whatever. What is so hard to get about that? LOL.
