You guys saying that Alford shot wasn't goaltending just need to stop. Here's the official rule

[Enfuego]

Article 3, Section C

When any part of the ball is above the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

Now, you can argue all you want the ball had no possibility of entering the basket but if there's even a doubt that ball was going to hit the rim, it's goaltending. 9 out of 10 refs would've called that play goaltending.

Just stop it already.

 

[bobbyjones2]

the kid fucked up..he made a poor decision at the worst possible time, it cost his team

now the rules have to be changed?

 

[Enfuego]

the kid fucked up..he made a poor decision at the worst possible time, it cost his team

now the rules have to be changed?

Exactly and he even admitted he made a mistake.

 

[packer2012]

the kid fucked up...... now the rules have to be changed?

Hell yea...... call it the 'Jimbo Fisher Rule". Rule will state to let any dumb-assed punk fracture any rule and the adults in charge are too ignore it..... over and over..... until the kid completes his growth into a complete piece of shit!

(Reminder...... No grown man goes by the name Jimbo!()

 

[dg84]

That ball had no chance to go in, aside from divine intervention.

 

[jwhite]

By the book, a goaltend, but in a common sense way of thinking, the ball had zero chance of going in and ucla didn't deserve to get credit for 3 points on a shot that had no chance. Smu kid made a dumb play but it sucks

 

[packer2012]

For those who have never understood basketball...... if the ball is occupying any "airspace" above the rim....... you touch it (off or def) GOALTENDING. Done deal.

The angle they kept showing on TV was a crappy angle. They had one lots better..... but they prefer to concentrate on the one that is the most controversial.

Good call....... too bad for the dunce who touched the ball (committed the infraction). Also..... this is not INTERNATIONAL RULES. Those who know basketball will smile at that comment. Those who don't smile....... don't understand what is being discussed.

 

[bobbyjones2]

That ball had no chance to go in, aside from divine intervention.

more reason to let it go and position himself

 

[tmader7]

Phuck the rule, that ball had as much chance of hitting the rim as I have of becoming a billionaire tomorrow.

~T~

 

[sdf]

By the book, a goaltend, but in a common sense way of thinking, the ball had zero chance of going in and ucla didn't deserve to get credit for 3 points on a shot that had no chance. Smu kid made a dumb play but it sucks

basically everyone's thinking that complained. there was no guarantee the ball would even touch rim and there was no way the ball was going in.

 

[packer2012]

GOALTENDING..... Pure, simple, absolute, guaranteed, done deal, case closed, good call, suck it up, swallow hard, tuff shit, good night..... don't forget to tip your waitress!

Now..... that's not to say that some shit-bag will try to "clarify" and change the rule. It's worked since time began..... but.... some butt-heads are crying.

 

[tmader7]

GOALTENDING..... Pure, simple, absolute, guaranteed, done deal, case closed, good call, suck it up, swallow hard, tuff shit, good night..... don't forget to tip your waitress!

Now..... that's not to say that some shit-bag will try to "clarify" and change the rule. It's worked since time began..... but.... some butt-heads are crying.

Pack, how's it a goal tend if it has no chance of even reaching the basket, really? I've watched the replay, I'd say 30 times, and that ball wasn't even gonna touch the rim. COME ON MAN!!!

~T~

 

[jrb64]

Yesterday is over. Move on.