Officials blew that game at the end of regulation. Fisher shot the ball as the clock was runing down. Harvard defender went up and took the ball out of the air before the ball hit the rim. The rule is that it doesn’t matter if the ball has a chance of going in. That should have been a goal tending call.
You’re joking right?
Just when I think you have turned the corner and are starting to get it, you revert to your old ways. You are like the Robert Anae of COUGARFAN.
That shot wasn’t going to hit the rim anymore than you can touch the rim. The shot was nearly two feet short, no chance at going in.
If the shot had even the slightest chance then I would be sympathetic to your claim, but I disagree 100%.
You are wrong. The announcers at the game agreed with me. The players hand was at most 4 inches from the rim. I’m getting to think your eyesight is leaving you. Didn’t Floyd say the same thing?
If you honestly think that Fischer’s shot had a chance in heck of going in, you are completely and utterly delusional. Do you realize how long 4 inches is? Probably about the length of your nose at this point. By the time you finally acknowledge the obvious, that the play was a stupid call and that selFischers shot had no chance because it was more than a foot away, your nose will be at the appropriate distance… come on Pinocchio, be honest.
Does anyone else agree with Scott? that Fisher’s shot was only 4 inches from the basket? and that goaltending should have been called, BYU should have gotten credit for the basket and won the game?
And does anyone agree with Floyd and Scott that on Mangum’s touchdown it was unclear if the ball crossed the goal line? just like the Utah touchdown?
Does the rule state that the ball must be on it’s downward arc and “Close” to the rim to be considered goal tending?
Don’t pull me into your discussion with Jim, Not sure what you are referring to either…
On the downward arc going to make contact with the rim. Jim thinks 6" is 2 feet. Just like in the football game.
I didn’t see the game, but from the conversation i gather that it’s best to go back to the official rules for the NCAA.
Section 17 Article 3
a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a fieldgoal
try and each of the following conditions is met:
- The ball is on its downward flight; and
- 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
So the real question that the ref has to answer is, did the ball have any chance of going in. Now that’s a tricky one for a ref to decide in about half a second. Most refs, if the ball looks like it will hit the rim in such a way that it may bounce up, will give the benefit of the doubt and call goaltending because crazy bounces happen. However, if it is clear that the ball will barely reach the rim and just glance off and down, no goaltending should be called as the ball is deemed to have had no chance of any kind to go in.
The nature of the discussion above seems to indicate that yes, the ball might have touched the rim if it had traveled on, but no, it would have at best just glanced off, so the no call is the correct call. Just the possibility of getting to the rim by itself does not make it a goaltend.
your position is correct. In this case the ball had absolutely no chance of reaching the rim, let alone going in. It was well short…