I remember in 2017 they tried......but the guys wouldn't stop making 3 pointers.....18 I think. That seems to be the only way you will win down there.
Missed goaltending call
- Thread starter cyclonedave25
- Start date
I remember in 2017 they tried......but the guys wouldn't stop making 3 pointers.....18 I think. That seems to be the only way you will win down there.
I’m assuming Tuco was in to point out that Kansas got called for a couple fouls at some point, and since their **** for brains fanbase booed it means they were bad calls. Therefore it all evens out.
If you’ve watched enough games vs Michigan State you can feel our pain.
Same. As soon as the 30 second mark hit in the review I knew we were getting reffed.
exactly, stop thinking they are immune from bias and not capable of injecting themselves in to the outcomes of games.
Makes sense that charges that the announcers thought were good calls, did not directly lead to points, did not create foul trouble would be the worst thing he can bring up. It’s the same thing every time. Tuco is typical KU fan. Thinks he knows the game but then he opens his mouth and proves he doesn’t know Jack **** about basketball. I can hear those morons in the Phog now, “but he wasn’t even set!” Loved the offensive rebounding foul on Lightfoot where he’s humping Conditt’s back and their fans are booing.
I didn’t see the carry that was called, but on the other side before that I saw Jones go up for a rebound and magically somehow hit his igniters and fly about 5 foot directly forward. That takes skill. He just needs to not do it so the ball lands behind him. I figured the carry (which pretty much never gets called) was a make up for that.
Times like this I wish there was an "extra super agree" reaction. The goaltend wasn't even a subjective call that was obviously wrong, it's an objective one where a ball that hits the backboard first is always a goaltend. The most charitable explanation for the officials were that they were in over their heads and shouldn't be doing high major games.
Eh the carry was one of those where the dribbler lost control/looked so awkward with a move that the official basically had to call something, IMO.
The carry was def a carry, but since it didn’t give him an advantage and seemed to be caused by him slipping on a wet spot on the floor I am surprised they called it. He basically slipped and regathered, and it didn’t really effect the play, so they may have been looking for an opportunity for a makeup call.
So, thanks to our brothers out East, (I found this in their complain thread from a 2021 game) here is the 2020 amendment to the original rule where basket interference (goaltending) was NEVER reviewable with the assistance of any available equipment.
Rule changed (amended is probably a better description) in 2020.
"In the last two minutes of the second period or the last two minutes of any overtime period, and only when a call/decision has been made, to determine if basket interference or goaltending has occurred. When the call/decision on the floor is reversed as a result of the review, the officials must determine if there was team possession when the call was made and award the ball to the team if in possession. Otherwise, team possession will be determined by the alternating-possession arrow."
AS this occurred at 1:47.5 it could have been reviewed if they would have called it, but they didn't, so no review was allowed. The rule is dumb OR the rule for reviewing 3 pointers should be changed to only be reviewable IF they call it one way or another. What people are going to say is that stopping play would ruin the pace or flow of the game and that difference between 0 and 2 points on a play is not that great. So why would they stop play to review a 2/3? Same reasoning. Accuracy.
AND the pièce de résistance of the entire transaction is the MISS of an obvious goaltending situation / execution by the officials and that you know darn well that if ISU had wiped one like that they would have reflexively called it. IF it is reviewable and you can correct yourself, you should call that when it is a close situation. The commentators last night said it was a bang bang situation, so they could see how it got missed. Sure it was bang bang, but, I without any referee training, can tell you when it is likely that a goaltending has occurred, I can see the trajectory of the ball change off the backboard and I can just feel that it was a goaltend when the backboard is in play (non-backboard goaltends are less clear cut and always requires more judgement and makes it harder to question.) OFFICIALS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FEEL THAT TOO. Call it in real time and correct yourself with review if need be. This flow argument is ridiculous. Once again, if we are going to nitpick 2 vs 3, we need to nitpick 0 vs 2.
I've seen others on Twitter claim that the moving screen a couple possessions after the goaltend was equally bad and "made up" for the missed goaltend. First thing, they're wrong since it didn't directly keep points from going on the scoreboard. And secondly, I think most fans that understand basketball would admit that was pretty clearly a moving screen.
They were completely over their heads. One of the major calls KU complaining against on twitter was a foul by Gabe in the FH - where he was INTENTIONALLY trying to foul Obaji because he was burned... they missed the foul call and he made a wide open jumper. They can't process that the missed foul call actually helped them.
Completely let the game go without handchecks being called (probably benefited us). I didn't get a good look at the flagrant (was at game) - so can't comment too much there. The goal tend wasn't even the fact that it was off the backboard, it was clearly coming down as well. Wasn't even really borderline watching live.
OK, thanks for opening this up.
Does anyone understand how complicated the positioning and who calls what is in officiating? Its like the first thing you have to learn OR you can't come close to working with someone else. It also causes calls to be inconsistent from end to end (officials please comment on how this occurs.)
Here's my plan. Use precisely positioned cameras and a number of professional officials to call particulars of the game. One person watches for ball handling infractions (traveling, carrying, double dribble), another watches for out of bounds, another for charge/blocks, etc. etc. Have a team of around 10 people on computers managing the calls of the game and 2 people on the floor to manage the coaches and players / verbal crap etc.
There has to be a way to take the out-of-position or inconsistency from end to end out of the picture. I know the technology would be a nightmare, but it definitely opens up the opportunity to give some of us armchair refs a chance at reffing at a high level. ha!
I'm being serious about this though.
Fire away.
I believe the refs just stopped play to review whether Grills’s feet were on or behind the line because it was so close.