|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1918
|
National Champion [7571]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 7:57 PM
|
|
My word refs suck #######
|
|
|
|
 |
1st Rounder [643]
TigerPulse: 74%
21
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
I thought so too
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [73514]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117794
Joined: 1998
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 7:59 PM
|
|
and in the cuylinder but the refs will find a way
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:13 PM
|
|
It wasn't in the cylinder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78359]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29068
Joined: 2018
|
Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 7:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Mar 9, 2024, 8:00 PM
|
|
Yeah…its definitely the rule that a ball on the way down being blocked by a defender is goal tending, which was the case here lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [9047]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:01 PM
|
|
But the ball clearly was not on the way down
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Mar 9, 2024, 8:02 PM
|
|
The ball clearly was
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:04 PM
|
|
No it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Mar 9, 2024, 8:05 PM
|
|
Yes, lol, it was. It’s okay to admit it. It’s not the reason we lost, but at a critical juncture it certainly hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:06 PM
|
|
No, the ball was not on the way down. It asinine to claim that it was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7571]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Mar 9, 2024, 8:07 PM
|
|
It was indeed on the way down. You wearing ref glasses that are blinders
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:15 PM
|
|
No it wasn't. You are just wearing orange colored glasses. It didn't go down until the Wake Forest player blocked it. The ball was going to bank off the backboard. It wouldn't have gone down until after it hit the backboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Mar 9, 2024, 8:16 PM
|
|
Yeah the ball was on the way down, a lot of times balls hit the backboard on the way down. If that’s your reasoning for being blind then lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:27 PM
|
|
On a 3 point shot. Not a layup.
My reasoning is watching the actual video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:35 PM
|
|
So the only time the ball can be on a downward trajectory is a 3? So floaters aren’t a thing? Midrange? This wasn’t a break away layup, the ball was on the way down heading off the glass.
Your reasoning is as broken as your vision apparently is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:36 PM
|
|
As for your reasoning of the Wake player hitting the ball down…why did it go up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yea, that's not the rule.*** ] |
|
No, not just a three pointer, but when you are shooting a layup from a foot or two away, that you are banking off the glass, then yeah. He wasn't shooting a floater, or a midrange jumper. He wad shooting a layup off the glass.
That's not my only argument though. You can just watch the video and see that the ball wasn't going down before it was blocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:43 PM
|
|
He wasn’t a foot or two away, if he was then the ball would’ve been off the backboard before the defender could get there. It was more of a floaterish layup and most definitely on the way down. Adjust your prescription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yea, that's not the rule.*** ] |
|
Well once the ball has clearly stopped rising and is on the way back to the ground that’s called on the way down, which it absolutely was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:16 PM
|
|
No, it was not. The ball didn't start going down until after the Wake Forest player hit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:17 PM
|
|
Yes, it was. Have someone drive you to an emergency optometrist, or if you need to wait until the weekend is over take an Uber but definitely don’t get behind the wheel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:27 PM
|
|
You are just looking at it with orange colored glasses. It was not going down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:37 PM
|
|
I’m looking at it objectively. The ball was on the way down, to hit off the backboard and go in the basket.
You think the Wake player jumped and swatted the ball down, yet when they contacted it it went up. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3673]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
Aug 18, 2021, 3:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: Yea, that's not the rule.*** ] |
|
If the rule changed OK. But slomo showed it on the way down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78359]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29068
Joined: 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: No. You need to review the rule.
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:03 PM
|
|
Actually, grandpa, you need to review the rule. Touching the ball on a downward trajectory is in fact goaltending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78359]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29068
Joined: 2018
|
It wasn't coming down lol
1
Mar 10, 2024, 2:31 PM
|
|
🤡
You and the other dopes think that the ball coming down is the only stipulation in the rule. Well, it's not. The ball wasn't coming down nor over the cylinder. So read the rules. If you can read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15955]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 17501
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [23610]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13201
Joined: 2006
|
I just checked...
1
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:08 PM
[ in reply to No. You need to review the rule. ] |
|
Its goaltending if its on the way down. You are flat out wrong.
Not only that, it says if possession is clearly established, that team gets the ball, otherwise its alternating possession. Which Clemson clearly got the ball. It was just bad officiating all the way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16948]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 16889
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Yea, that's not the rule.***
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:09 PM
[ in reply to Yea, that's not the rule.*** ] |
|
Dood if the ball is on the way down then touched by a defender it is goaltending. Plain and simple. Easy math. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7414]
TigerPulse: 94%
42
Posts: 13038
Joined: 1999
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
Mar 9, 2024, 8:08 PM
|
|
Irrelevant - he was fouled on the arm going up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27619]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 31980
Joined: 2003
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
2
Mar 9, 2024, 8:26 PM
|
|
The ball was touched BEFORE it hit the backboard so it was not goal tending!!!
IF the ball had hit the backboard and then touched it would not have been a legal play.
Know much about basketball rules???
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:38 PM
|
|
You can’t block a shot on the way down, by the rule that is goaltending. Do you know much about the rules?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [429]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
3
Mar 9, 2024, 8:23 PM
|
|
The ball was not in the cylinder, did not hit the glass, and was not on the way down. It was the right call to review and was the correct call to overturn.
Stop blaming the refs when the Tigers lose. If they deserved to win, they would have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7571]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
Mar 9, 2024, 8:28 PM
|
|
Who blamed it on refs ??
Clemson was losing regardless, it’s history. But the ball, when watched in slow-no, had hit its arc and was indeed on way back toward the ground. Refs missed it because they miss most things, it’s just reality. Even when it’s slowed down the idiots still f it up, rent a ref per the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1259]
TigerPulse: 93%
27
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:29 PM
|
|
It wasn't on the way back down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6694]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
Posts: 11170
Joined: 2007
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
Mar 9, 2024, 8:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!! ] |
|
I’m not blaming it on the refs, but on this particular play the ball was indeed on the way down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4431]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 9, 2024, 8:28 PM
|
|
Refs didn’t loose this game Clemsons poor D once again lost this game. So funny how we somehow keep running into these freaky nights where the opposing offensive goes off and we are suppose to just tip our cap. No it’s called BB can’t coach and we play #### poor D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [781]
TigerPulse: 81%
22
|
Re: That ball was on the way down, ###!!!!
1
Mar 10, 2024, 6:53 PM
|
|
The only way the ball is on the way down before it hits the backboard on a layup is if you let it go a foot above the rim. You dunk it if that's the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1918
|
|
|
50
