Goaltend or clean block

[tower912]

Clean block.

(Sarcasm alert)
Ben protects the rim one time and this is what happens. (Sarcasm over)

He was a foot above the rim.  Well done, kid.  The refs gotcha.

[NCMUFan]

How about on the turnover at the end.
Did it hit Ben's foot or not?

[mileskishnish72]

Nope.

[tower912]

It did not.

[NCMUFan]

So refs doing as good as guessing.

[tower912]

They did their due diligence and decided there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the floor. I agreed half the time.

[Uncle Rico]

Goaltend

[Newsdreams]

Goaltend

Always be briiicking

[Newsdreams]

So refs doing as good as guessing.

The only view didn't show ball change direction or rotation, that would tend to confirm it wasn't touched. There was no evidence to overturn.

[Shaka Shart]

Always be briiicking

Every block is a lost dunk from him on the other end

[wisblue]

In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.

But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.

The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.

[Shaka Shart]

In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.

But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.

The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.

Inbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three

[NCMUFan]

In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.

But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.

The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.

Yea, they stopped live play on that.  Who grabbed the ball after the block?

[romey]

Inbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three

In regulation, Rivera hadn't hit a 3 since the 8 minute mark.  The only threes they had in regulation after that was Gunn at 6:42 and Enright at 1:42.

I had to look it up, of course.  It was OT where Rivera lit it up.  After we stretched it to a double digit lead.

[wisblue]

I don't know how the refs are instructed, but on a play like that it would be better to let the play go at least until a team has clear possession. Treat it like they do with fumbles in football. If not sure, they let the play go. If they determine there was no fumble they can always go back and reset the clock.

On this play because the whistle blew it isn't clear who would have grabbed the rebound.

[tower912]

Inbounds Depaul and Rivera would have hit a behind the back three

Triple Lindy three.

[bradforster]

In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.

But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.

The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.

It would have gone to Depaul on the possession arrow with 3.1 seconds to play.  Depaul was most certainly going to drill a fadeaway three pointer off the board from 24 feet for the win.  As it turned out, MU got the best case scenario.  I too thought there was clear evidence of a clean Gold block.

[TallTitan34]

It real time I thought it was a goaltend until I saw the replay. 

The ball changed rotation twice.  Once when it hit Ben's hand and then when it hit the backboard.

[MUrugger]

On the DePaul turnover at the end, sitting in Sect.122 (not the best angle), my fear was that they were going to call a blocking foul on Gold. He clearly was guarding #1 (Rivera) as he hustled up court, staying in front of him as best he could. IMO, Shaka was looking for the 7 footer to alter the 3, rather than foul or steal the ball (w/a guard) before he took it. Like SS (above) suggested, Rivera was Kryptonite at the end, and he was looking to end it.   

[BrewCity83]

The replay pretty clearly showed a clean block.

On the out-of-bounds play, there wasn't a perfect replay angle, but it looked to me like it hit Gold's foot based on the way the ball turned before it hit the floor.

[Pakuni]

Clean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.

[Scoop Snoop]

Clean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.

This. And as many others have said, it was the best outcome for Marquette. Almost like fouling in the closing seconds to prevent an opponent from getting a tying 3 pointer. So they get both FTs and lose by one point. 

[LloydsLegs]

How about on the turnover at the end.
Did it hit Ben's foot or not?

Right in front of me and I thought in real time it was not off of Ben and that they might go to the tape for purposes of the clock. 

But: 

1. Refs were a joke- just looking at each other- two did not want to review; the one closest to Holt was getting an earful and wanted to review; I think they finally decided that they could all agree on a clock review (which then would enable them to overturn the out of bounds ruling).

2. I was more worried in real time (they couldn't make this call on review) that they were going to call Ben for a foul- he was incredibly physical and basically forced the DP guy to go out.  Strong play, but right on the edge.

[MarquetteMike1977]

In live action I can't criticize the refs for calling the goaltending.

But, on review it was clear (though very close) that Gold got the ball before it hit the glass. The fact that it hit his hand again after he hit it off the board probably helped to make it look like goaltending live.

The question is what they would have done if they had reversed the call. Would it go to an alternate possession? If the arrow was pointing to DePaul that might not have been the best thing for MU the way Rivera was tossing in the circus shots.Reminded me of St. John's 2 years ago when they almost caught up after being down by double digits late.

Marquette would have got possession. There was a jump ball under a minute that went to DEPaul. The arrow was pointed toward Marquette. When Kam threw the ball away to Jop at the end I was saying Kam should have just held it since Marquette would have got possession. That said. Spoke with Kam's Dad and David's Mom at the game. They are the best families and players.

[tower912]

Clean block, but you can't blame the refs for getting it wrong in real time and there wasn't "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call.

Fair