Goaltending or Block?

[Capitol Shock II]

Well we should have been down by 2 points at that point anyway due to the basket they gave Demetric when he clearly didn't get the shot off before the shot clock expired.

[AndShock]

Well we should have been down by 2 points at that point anyway due to the basket they gave Demetric when he clearly didn't get the shot off before the shot clock expired.

SIU had 20 minutes to fix the ref's screwup, we had 2 seconds.

[shocker3]

Block! After a travel. No doubt about it.

[ShockerFever]

Any rule that automatically awards a team points should be reviewable. There is a natural stoppage in the game. That is a major flaw in the current rulebook.

Astute observation, K-Wu. They pretty much review everything else. They freaking review 3-pointers. They might as well review goal tends, ESPECIALLY in late game situations.

[rrshock]

SIU had 20 minutes to fix the ref's screwup, we had 2 seconds.

But we had a whole 2nd half to not let that even be an issue. Instead we pissed down our legs.

[ShockTalk]

But we had a whole 2nd half to not let that even be an issue. Instead we pissed down our legs.

Yup, totally agree. In fact, you can add the last 5 minutes or so of the 1st half that was our major culprit to the loss.

Nevertheless, I believe Sub and Ref would agree that calls at the end of a close game should be "certain calls" and that the referees do not create a situation where they determine the outcome from a very questionable, if not totally wrong, call. The ref that made the call was not the one that had the best view if the ball was headed downward at the time of the block. @Kung Wu:'s point is very valid. Since there is a stoppage of play due to points being awarded, such a play should also be reviewed. No difference than checking for a 3 pointer. This was not a foul, charge, or block situation, which should not be reviewable.

[rrshock]

Yup, totally agree. In fact, you can add the last 5 minutes or so of the 1st half that was our major culprit to the loss.

Nevertheless, I believe Sub and Ref would agree that calls at the end of a close game should be "certain calls" and that the referees do not create a situation where they determine the outcome from a very questionable, if not totally wrong, call. The ref that made the call was not the one that had the best view if the ball was headed downward at the time of the block. @Kung Wu:'s point is very valid. Since there is a stoppage of play due to points being awarded, such a play should also be reviewed. No difference than checking for a 3 pointer. This was not a foul, charge, or block situation, which should not be reviewable.

I agree about the calls/no-calls. But it still comes down to not being in a situation for that to happen.

And I absolutely agree with the reviewing a goal tend. It should be done. IIRC, there was a controversial no-call in the Michigan game the other night where many thought Hardaway Jr. goal tended instead of it being a clean block.

[shockmonster]

Well we should have been down by 2 points at that point anyway due to the basket they gave Demetric when he clearly didn't get the shot off before the shot clock expired.

And then what about the time in the second half where the SIU PG took at least 2 steps when he was stopping the dribble. In that possession, they scored two points. Then we would have been up 2 points at the point above. :)

[shockmonster]

Pretty definitive from the video it was definitely a block. But you don't put yourself in the place where a ref judgement call can mean the difference between a win or loss.

Good coach speak Coach Marshall, but how do you really feel about it?

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+twisted+sister+not+gonna+take+it&mid=989BF4A8F2C73506C07D989BF4A8F2C73506C07D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE4

[AndShock]

But we had a whole 2nd half to not let that even be an issue. Instead we pissed down our legs.

I don't disagree I was just pointing out apples to oranges.

[RoyalShock]

Any rule that automatically awards a team points should be reviewable. There is a natural stoppage in the game. That is a major flaw in the current rulebook.

Interesting thought. But here's a question. If last night's goaltending call was reviewed and reversed, who gets the ball? Play stops when the call is made, so there hasn't been a rebound and neither team has control of the ball. If you go with alternating possession, one team is getting seriously robbed since neither team was given a chance to gain possession after the interference.

[SubGod22]

Alternating possession would have to be the call. And it's the best way to do such things. Same as with a double foul and any play where the whistle is blown and nobody has possession.

[TheYeti]

Ref called it one way. No controversy, pointless to speculate.

[Kung Wu]

Interesting thought. But here's a question. If last night's goaltending call was reviewed and reversed, who gets the ball? Play stops when the call is made, so there hasn't been a rebound and neither team has control of the ball. If you go with alternating possession, one team is getting seriously robbed since neither team was given a chance to gain possession after the interference.

In my mind this is straightforward. A team was penalized for a foul that wasn't committed and were the last team to touch the ball when the non-infraction was whistled. So they should get the ball back at the nearest point where the non-foul occurred.

[Kung Wu]

Alternating possession would have to be the call. And it's the best way to do such things. Same as with a double foul and any play where the whistle is blown and nobody has possession.

I disagree here. If the guy is goaltending then the other team gets two points automatically. Thats pretty generous. The flip side should be if the guy was NOT goaltending and made a great stop, then he gets the ball back.