Need opinion from the objective masses

[MaNu4Tres]

Mav fan's all over the internet are really trying to dig deep and are trying to justify the 3-1 hole their beloved Mavs have against the Stern loving Spurs :lol.

They are totally disregarding how the Spurs have shot a better % in every game this series ( Which proves Spurs have better defense and are the better team.)

The only game the Mavs won of these 4 was when they attempted 20 more free throws. Go figure..

Anyway I'm tired of hearing all this crying from Mav fans about the officiating.

I just wanted an opinion from an objective point of view...Do any of you all actually believe these are legitimate playoff type fouls??



<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o8oQ5ZSiyLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o8oQ5ZSiyLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


Talk about digging deep Mav fans...

[Cry Havoc]

If that's 5 fouls, then Damp and Haywood literally foul out every time they guard Duncan.

[z0sa]

What's more pathetic, thinking Dirk got fouled 5 times in that sequence, or actually putting it up on youtube for all to laugh at?

The day refs call playoff ball strict enough to where those 5 are clearly missed calls, I'll have long since stopped watching National Basketball Entertainment.

[z0sa]

^

[mogrovejo]

Yeps, refs are allowing the Spurs to defend Dirk by hand-checking him. That's obviously a foul. I mean, judge by yourself:


b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.

Don't you think that in that play Nowitzki is holding the ball and Dice initiates contact with his hands? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[z0sa]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.

[mogrovejo]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.


No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

These fouls are generally called, playoffs or not.

I'm really not going to lose time arguing this. It's too obvious and one would need to be blind or a lunatic to deny the evidence. Doesn't mean the Mavs are losing games because of the refs; the culprits are others.

[Halberto]

I'd say there was 2 missed calls there. (2 and 5 of the ones labeled)

Doesn't mean the game though

[z0sa]

No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

Dirk turns his back to the basket, which is when Dyess puts the forearm.


These fouls are generally called, playoffs or not.

Not really



I'm really not going to lose time arguing this. It's too obvious and one would need to be blind or a lunatic to deny the evidence.

I think you don't understand that a player can have his forearm on your hip when you play with your back to the basket. Just because you turn and swing the ball across your chest, brushing his perfectly legally-placed hand out of the way in the process, does that mean a clear foul occurred. That's called "incidental contact."

[MaNu4Tres]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?

It is legal to use a forearm if the player is playing with their back to the basket.

After posting for a second, Dirk turns, but he doesn't face up, he's still got his back turned away from the basket while he's looking to pass. So leaving the pawe on is still borderline-legal. Not enough for any type of call in the playoffs.

Not to mention Dirk initiating the contact with his elbow sweeping the ball through to create room from McDyess.

[mogrovejo]

Dirk turns his back to the basket, which is when Dyess puts the forearm.



Not really




I think you don't understand that a player can have his forearm on your hip when you play with your back to the basket. Just because you turn and swing the ball across your chest, brushing his perfectly legally-placed hand out of the way in the process, does that mean a clear foul occurred. That's called "incidental contact."

Are you this dense? Are you telling me that when Dirk receives the pass from Kidd he's with his back to the basket? And that McDyess puts the forearm? He doesn't even put the forearm. I mean, are you such an hysteric homer you can't even see the play in front of your eyes?

Not that would matter, it'd still be a foul because he's above the ft line extended. Just shows how clueless you are when you don't even know the basic rules.

[z0sa]

I remember in 2006, Mark Cuban complained about Tim Duncan slapping away hands/arms on his post moves kinda like Dirk just did. Yeah, seriously - Cuban complained that what Mogro is calling a clear defensive foul, is actually an offensive foul. I heard it during the broadcast so I'm not sure if there's an article I can quickly find.

[mogrovejo]

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1476/dirkfoul.pngThis is the moment Dirk catches the ball.

Is this a guy with his back to the basket or with his feet below the FTLE?

According to Spur fan, yes.

Fucking retards.

[z0sa]

Are you this dense?

More fat Mexican jokes?


Are you telling me that when Dirk receives the pass from Kidd he's with his back to the basket?

Doesn't matter


And that McDyess puts the forearm? He doesn't even put the forearm. I mean, are you such an hysteric homer you can't even see the play in front of your eyes?

First of all, foul number 1 doesn't even occur til a long time after Dyess puts the forearm. So if you're arguing for different fouls than the youtube, maybe you should be clear. Try refering the numbers, if you can.



Between 0:00 and 0:03, Dirk receives the pass, and and turns his back away from the basket. At first, Dyess puts his right hand on his back, which he then quickly takes away and puts the left forearm. These are facts. Dirk keeps his back to the basket until he finally faces up and immediately swings the ball through Dyess' chest/arm.


Not that would matter, it'd still be a foul because he's above the ft line extended. Just shows how clueless you are when you don't even know the basic rules.

Now now, that's a bit subjective of an opinion on your part. The ref clearly didn't see it that way.

[z0sa]

0:20, not that sequence

[MaNu4Tres]

In my honest opinion I see only 1 or 2 fouls of the "5" counted.

Missed calls are missed on both sides throughout the course of the game.

I just thought it was ludicrous to make a video on the type of the 2 fouls that I counted.

At the end of the day Mavs were called for 22 fouls, Spurs 20.

Mavs have just been outplayed these 4 games.

It's clear by looking at the shooting percentages from every game this series, which Spurs have the upper hand. Meaning they are playing the better defense and just playing more efficiently overall on both sides of the floor. The only game Mavs were able to pull off was when they shot 20 more free throws.


Referees aren't the reason Mavs are down 3-1.

[z0sa]

Whenever he brings the ball across during that sequence, it's really a difficult call. He just has his arms out, he's not really holding dirk at all. The final drive is probably a foul. The first two are definite good no calls.

[mogrovejo]

Now it doesn't matter any more if he's with his back to the basket ?

Wow, you're a retard. I'm sorry, I'm generally civil and polite, but your homerism is beyond pathetic and you deserve to be lambasted by any serious fan of the game of basketball.

And stop using expressions like "incidental contact". You have no fucking clue what incidental contact really is. There's no incidental contact when the defensive player puts his hands all over the offensive player body.

ps - okay, it the last post you already admit there's "probably a foul" (the "probably" is still pathetic because the fouls are quite clear), so I'll cut you some slack and retreat from my former name-calling for the sake of encouraging the ongoing progress. Small steps.

[MaNu4Tres]

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1476/dirkfoul.pngThis is the moment Dirk catches the ball.



That my friend is not a legitimate playoff foul (meaning an automatic call in a playoff type atmosphere, where aggression on both ends and physicality is increased). It is a foul by the book, but it is a ticky tack playoff type foul. ( If that makes any sense).

If you have trouble understanding, go look at playoff games from 2002-2008 and watch what kind of fouls were called on Bruce Bowen.

[z0sa]

Now it doesn't matter any more if he's with his back to the basket ?

You have been arguing the wrong call this entire time. I mean, I start at Call #1 on the YouTube and you go off on me like I'm the idiot whose arguing call Numbers 3/4/5 already.


Wow, you're a retard. I'm sorry, I'm generally civil and polite, but your homerism is beyond pathetic and you deserve to be lambasted by any serious fan of the game of basketball.

:lol you're generally a smug douchebag is what you are.


And stop using expressions like "incidental contact". You have no fucking clue what incidental contact really is. There's no incidental contact when the defensive player puts his hands all over the offensive player body.

Says someone who doesn't even know what the fuck I'm arguing. Good strawman this entire thread, jackass.

[mogrovejo]

That my friend is not a legitimate playoff foul (meaning an automatic call in a playoff type atmosphere, where aggression on both ends and physicality is increased). It is a foul by the book, but is a ticky tack playoff type foul. ( If that makes any sense).

If you have trouble understanding, go look at playoff games from 2002-2008 and watch Bruce Bowen and what the refs called and didn't call.

1. Of course that isn't a foul, the point of the picture wasn't the illustrate a foul. There's not even contact going on, how would that supposed to be a foul?

2. You recommendation to watch games from 2002 is beyond stupid considering the rules changed.

3. The way Bowen was officiated isn't an example.

4. Who are you?

[z0sa]

^ you don't see Dirk start backing Dyess down at the very, very beginning of that youtube?


No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

What exactly was this response about, Mogrovejo?

:lol fucking ridiculous.

[AnthonyM]

Dirk can't be touched.

They were all fouls...and probably more.

[mogrovejo]

Says someone who doesn't even know what the fuck I'm arguing. Good strawman this entire thread, jackass.

I was the one posting saying there was a foul and you refuted my post saying there wasn't a foul. Now I don't know what you are arguing? :bang:bang

Fucking retards.

[z0sa]

Fucking retards.


No, I see him receiving a pass from Kidd, at the right elbow, well out lower defensive box, facing up and McDyess initiating contact.

What youtube is this the very, very beginning of, fucking retard?


Now I don't know what you are arguing?

It seems kinda like you knew exactly what I was arguing, at least, you thought you did, you fucking retard you.

[xellos88330]

There are only 2 possible calls in that sequence. Maybe we should make a video of Damp/Haywood guarding Duncan.

[MaNu4Tres]

1. Of course that isn't a foul, the point of the picture wasn't the illustrate a foul. There's not even contact going on, how would that supposed to be a foul?

2. You recommendation to watch games from 2002 is beyond stupid considering the rules changed.

3. The way Bowen was officiated isn't an example.

4. Who are you?

Your condescending responses aren't worth replying to, but I'll give in...

If you are unaware on how the intensity and physicality increases in the playoffs you are blind.

Calls like the one you suggest are let go more times than not especially in the latter stages of a critical playoff game.

If that's a automatic foul in the playoffs, both teams would be in the penalty with 10 minutes to go every quarter.

[mogrovejo]

Your condescending responses aren't worth replying to, but I'll give in...

If you are unaware on how the intensity and physicality increases in the playoffs you are blind.

Calls like the one you suggest are let go more times than not especially in the latter stages of a critical playoff game.

If that's a automatic foul in the playoffs, both teams would attempt over 50 free throws.

So, which part of "there's no foul happening in that picture, the point of the picture was to illustrate Dirk's position the moment he received the ball" you didn't understand?

I'm honestly curious.

Oh, btw, the rules changed since 2002. Are you aware of this now?

[z0sa]

So, which part of "there's no foul happening in that picture, the point of the picture was to illustrate Dirk's position the moment he received the ball" you didn't understand?

Which part of "very, very beginning" didn't you understand? :lol

[MaNu4Tres]

So, which part of "there's no foul happening in that picture, the point of the picture was to illustrate Dirk's position the moment he received the ball" you didn't understand?

I'm honestly curious.

Oh, btw, the rules changed since 2002. Are you aware of this now?

I'm talking about the whole video, where I caught (from an objective standpoint) MAYBE two "ticky-tack" fouls. Fouls like that are usually let go in this type of critical playoff game.


And I mentioned 2002-2008, not specifically 2002.

Are you aware of that?

[mogrovejo]

Which part of "very, very beginning" didn't you understand? :lol

1. The picture isn't at the very, very beginning.

2. What happens at the very, very beginning only matters for contact happening at the very, very beginning.

3. McDyess has his hands all over Dirk. Parker fouls putting an hand on his chest. It doesn't matter where Dirk was at the very, very beginning. Capisce? It's irrelevant. Immaterial.

[mogrovejo]

I'm talking about the whole video, where I caught (from an objective standpoint) MAYBE two "ticky-tack" fouls. Fouls like that are usually let go in this type of critical playoff game.


And I mentioned 2002-2008, not specifically 2002.

Are you aware of that?

You're clueless. If those fouls weren't called, everybody would still defend by using hand-checking.

Yes, I understand you mentioned 2002, 2003, 2004 and other years. What I'm asking is if you're aware the rules changed.

[Pero]

Wow, you're a retard. I'm sorry, I'm generally civil and polite, but your homerism is beyond pathetic and you deserve to be lambasted by any serious fan of the game of basketball.


Actually you seem to be incredibly cranky/rude lately. :lol

[MaNu4Tres]

You're clueless. If those fouls weren't called, everybody would still defend by using hand-checking.

Yes, I understand you mentioned 2002, 2003, 2004 and other years. What I'm asking is if you're aware the rules changed.

If those fouls are called on a consistent basis in a playoff type atmosphere, both teams would be in the penalty with 10 minutes left each quarter. Those were ticky tack playoff type fouls at best.


And yes I'm aware of rule changes professor.

[mogrovejo]

If those fouls are called on a consistent basis in a playoff type atmosphere, both teams would be in the penalty with 10 minutes left each quarter. Those were ticky tack playoff type fouls at best.


And yes I'm aware of rule changes professor.

No, because teams don't commit those fouls that often.

[z0sa]

1. The picture isn't at the very, very beginning.

No shit. Everyone established that as soon as you posted it. Too bad you posted it after much argument instead of simply posting it early or *GASP* using the in-video numbers as reference. You're too complex for simple numbers though, you need a whole picture proving your self-worth... i mean position.


2. What happens at the very, very beginning only matters for contact happening at the very, very beginning.

And the contact that happens a little bit after the beginning only matters for contact happening a little after the beginning, which is when the first ghost foul is "called".


3. McDyess has his hands all over Dirk.

Are we talking about Number 1 now? I'm not sure if you're comfortable with the video's numbering system, perhaps you should post another all-too-obvious picture just so everyone can keep up your pace.


It doesn't matter where Dirk was t the very, very beginning. Capisce? It's irrelevant. Immaterial.

So foul number 1 didn't happen? Are you basically saying, "Forget all those other fouls, let's talk about the one foul I wanna talk about?"

[mogrovejo]

No shit. Everyone established that as soon as you posted it. Too bad you posted it after much argument instead of simply posting it early or *GASP* using the in-video numbers as reference. You're too complex for simple numbers though, you need a whole picture proving your self-worth... i mean position.

And the contact that happens a little bit after the beginning only matters for contact happening a little after the beginning, which is when the first ghost foul is "called".

Are we talking about Number 1 now? I'm not sure if you're comfortable with the video's numbering system, perhaps you should post another all-too-obvious picture just so everyone can keep up your pace.


So foul number 1 didn't happen? Are you basically saying, "Forget all those other fouls, let's talk about the one foul I wanna talk about?"

Not even sure what you're arguing any more. My initial position stands: yes, they should have called fouls there. You can't see fouls in that video. You're hopeless. Btw, learn the rules instead of spitting nonsense like "they're called incidental contact". You don't have the slightest idea in your mind of what incidental contact is.

[mogrovejo]

Hand-checking was disallowed almost half a decade ago.

And yet, here I am having a discussion which is basically about if hand-checking should be called or not.

Surreal.

[z0sa]

You lame fucking retard, gloating about how much of a regular you are and everyone isn't, and you can't even bother reading a goddamn post even when you respond to it.

Very, very beginning means very, very beginning, numbnuts. When someone says the very, very beginning, you don't start calling them an idiot who can't see because you aren't at the right spot in the fucking video.

[boston.balla]

Hand-checking was disallowed almost half a decade ago.

And yet, here I am having a discussion which is basically about if hand-checking should be called or not.

Surreal.

mogro lay it rest, this case is similar to telling 21_bynums that bynum is not the second coming of wilt... it's absolutely obvious for anybody with eyes willing to see.

[z0sa]

Not even sure what you're arguing any more. My initial position stands: yes, they should have called fouls there. You can't see fouls in that video. You're hopeless. Btw, learn the rules instead of spitting nonsense like "they're called incidental contact". You don't have the slightest idea in your mind of what incidental contact is.

The refs certainly thought it was incidental contact. The refs' knowledge of the game/rulebook > yours, agreed?

[mogrovejo]

The refs certainly thought it was incidental contact. The refs' knowledge of the game/rulebook > yours, agreed?

The refs are always right? Good to know. I'm bookmarking this post.

[z0sa]

The refs are always right? Good to know. I'm bookmarking this post.

Yet another strawman. How unsurprising.

The refs' knowledge clearly >>> yours, though. And since they didn't call anything, that's already a strong argument no foul actually occurred.

[TD4THREE]

You're clueless. If those fouls weren't called, everybody would still defend by using hand-checking.

Yes, I understand you mentioned 2002, 2003, 2004 and other years. What I'm asking is if you're aware the rules changed.lol Do you even know what hand checking is? Hand checking is impeding the movement of a player usually by extending your elbow,it's more or less a small shove. It is not placing your hand on a player. That happens on every damn play.

[mogrovejo]

Yet another strawman. How unsurprising.

The refs' knowledge clearly >>> yours, though. And since they didn't call anything, that's already a strong argument no foul actually occurred.

Nice. The next time you feel the refs made a wrong call against the Spurs, rememeber that the refs' knowledge clearly >>> yours, though. And since they made a call against the Spurs, that's already a strong argument the call was correct.

[LnGrrrR]

Just for the purposes of this convo...



Hand Checking: A defender may not place and keep his hand on an opponent unless he is in the area near the basket with his back to the basket. A defender may momentarily touch an opponent with his hand anywhere on the court as long as it does not affect the opponent’s movement (speed, quickness, balance, rhythm).


http://www.nba.com/features/misunderstoodrules_051128.html

Edit: And since it was brought up...


Incidental Contact: The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. The hand is considered “ part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball and contact with a players hand when it is in contact with the ball is not a foul.

[z0sa]

Nice. The next time you feel the refs made a wrong call against the Spurs, rememeber that the refs' knowledge clearly >>> yours, though. And since they made a call against the Spurs, that's already a strong argument the call was correct.

Is this supposed to be a problem for me or something? I realized these facts of life a looong time ago, did you not?

[z0sa]

Thanks for those quotes.


I think you don't understand that a player can have his forearm on your hip when you play with your back to the basket. Just because you turn and swing the ball across your chest, brushing his perfectly legally-placed hand out of the way in the process, does that mean a clear foul occurred. That's called "incidental contact."

Is this a misrepresentation of the term "incidental contact"? The actual event occurs 0-0:03 of the youtube.

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks for those quotes.

No prob. :toast

Just refereeing this debate. :lol

[z0sa]

Ha, me and mogro would already have been ejected if there were refs!

[MiamiHeat]

MORE MAV FANS FOUL CONSPIRACIES

lolk

[Warlord23]

'Tis a debate worth having. However, to anybody who has watched the NBA in the last 5 years, these calls either get made or ignored depending on the refereeing crew. On some nights, the refs make these calls and effectively induce a free throw contest. On other nights, they "let them play".

Is mogrovejo trying to tell us that all NBA games have been refereed uniformly since that rule was changed? Basketball is a tough game to officiate. Referees are criticized for turning games into free throw parades. On the other hand they are criticized for not following every rule to the letter. That's why this has remained a gray area with different ref crews calling it subjectively.

BTW, like others have said, if those are fouls, people like Dampier and Artest would have been out of a job a long while ago.

[z0sa]

Let's just be honest - the great Bruce Bowen would never have been the #12 the NBA came to know and love (heh) if they called that video's 5 fouls consistently. Yet he excelled during the period the NBA came down on contact around the perimeter, especially handchecking, so how much did he really get away with?

[mogrovejo]

lol Do you even know what hand checking is? Hand checking is impeding the movement of a player usually by extending your elbow,it's more or less a small shove. It is not placing your hand on a player. That happens on every damn play.

lol the rule that disalowed hand-checking is the same applicable here, who cares if it's a shove with the shoulder or with the palm of the hand? lol


'Tis a debate worth having. However, to anybody who has watched the NBA in the last 5 years, these calls either get made or ignored depending on the refereeing crew. On some nights, the refs make these calls and effectively induce a free throw contest. On other nights, they "let them play".

Is mogrovejo trying to tell us that all NBA games have been refereed uniformly since that rule was changed? Basketball is a tough game to officiate. Referees are criticized for turning games into free throw parades. On the other hand they are criticized for not following every rule to the letter. That's why this has remained a gray area with different ref crews calling it subjectively.

BTW, like others have said, if those are fouls, people like Dampier and Artest would have been out of a job a long while ago.

Nonsense. Nowitzki is forced to pick his dribble because Dice didnt' take his hands off him and pushes him on the back. Refs call that 9 times out of 10 and when they don't is because they screwed up - like they did here.

[Warlord23]

l
Nonsense. Nowitzki is forced to pick his dribble because Dice didnt' take his hands off him and pushes him on the back. Refs call that 9 times out of 10 and when they don't is because they screwed up - like they did here.

No they don't call it 9 times out of 10 overall. They may call it 9 times out of 10 consistently within a game, but other games they may ignore it 9 times out of 10. Dampier in particular does it all the freaking time. If they called it 9 times out of 10 he'd be fouling out in a half. Same goes for Artest.

http://nbcsportsmedia.msnbc.com/j/ap/a5eff489-d33b-4780-aadf-8d1f99ae043f.hmedium.jpg

[mogrovejo]

No they don't call it 9 times out of 10 overall. They may call it 9 times out of 10 consistently within a game, but other games they may ignore it 9 times out of 10. Dampier in particular does it all the freaking time. If they called it 9 times out of 10 he'd be fouling out in a half. Same goes for Artest.

http://nbcsportsmedia.msnbc.com/j/ap/a5eff489-d33b-4780-aadf-8d1f99ae043f.hmedium.jpg

That's not a foul in the picture. Of course Dampier does it all the freaking time. You don't know the rules.

[mogrovejo]

Spur fan think that Dampier defending Duncan posting up down low should be called the same way of Dice defending Dirk facing up above the long elbow. It's amazing.

[Tmac&Luther]

Dirk is getting the shit fouled out of him......I can't even deny that.

The officiating in the NBA has become a joke, it has really turned me off over the last couple of years. Basketball used to be my favorite sport, that is no longer the case. There isn't another sport in this country that has officiating that's as inconsistent as the NBA.....it a joke.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess I'll weigh in.

Number 2 could have been a called foul. I mean, I don't think you're allowed to shove the arm of someone passing.

Number 5 could also have been called. He definitely impedes Dirk's progress by putting his arm/shoulder into him.

I wouldn't expect 1, 3 or 4 to get called in the playoffs. I didn't see the game, so I don't know how they were letting them play, which would affect 2 and 5.

[Cry Havoc]

That's not a foul in the picture. Of course Dampier does it all the freaking time. You don't know the rules.

Clearly you have zero room to be telling people about whether they no the rules or not, when you think that any time a defensive player touches an offensive player who's faced up that it's a "hand-check" foul.


Dirk is getting the shit fouled out of him......I can't even deny that.

The playoffs are physical. If those are 5 fouls on Dice, Dampier and Haywood should not ever see action past the second quarter because of the way they play Duncan.


http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1476/dirkfoul.pngThis is the moment Dirk catches the ball.

Is this a guy with his back to the basket or with his feet below the FTLE?

According to Spur fan, yes.

Fucking retards.

A defender may momentarily touch an opponent with his hand anywhere on the court as long as it does not affect the opponent’s movement (speed, quickness, balance, rhythm).

Annnnd you don't know basic NBA rules. Nicely done.

[LnGrrrR]

A defender may momentarily touch an opponent with his hand anywhere on the court as long as it does not affect the opponent’s movement (speed, quickness, balance, rhythm).


That's the main reason I could see number 5 being argued. It certainly does seem that McDyess impedes the progress of Dirk there, and Dirk isn't in the paint/doesn't have his back to the basket.

[DarrinS]

I know that Mavs and Suns fans wish that the NBA playoffs were played like a game of HORSE. If so, the Mavs and Suns would have multiple titles. Unfortunately for them, the NBA does allow the other team to play defense, especially in the playoffs.


Dirk did get screwed on that particular possession though.

[DarrinS]

Dirk is getting the shit fouled out of him......I can't even deny that.

The officiating in the NBA has become a joke, it has really turned me off over the last couple of years. Basketball used to be my favorite sport, that is no longer the case. There isn't another sport in this country that has officiating that's as inconsistent as the NBA.....it a joke.



You would've absolutely hated watching the Celtics-Lakers battles of the 80's. The NBA was VERY physical back in the day. That shit on Dirk would've been comletely ignored in that era. Those are little girl fouls.

[TJastal]

Just my opinion but it clearly looks like McDyess has his hands draped all over Nowitszki during that play there should have been a foul called, numerous fouls in fact.

Not only that but then at 6:35 in the 3rd quarter Dirk gets charged a foul on brushing away Dice's hands which are again all over him. Culprit here is Bob Delaney, who I noticed made piss-poor calls all game long against both teams.

Not that I'm complaining that much, Dice has paid a high price all year to get this kind of respect when it matters (and he's one of my favorite spurs) but you'd have to be a homer to try to argue those aren't fouls.

[Shank]

MORE MAV FANS FOUL CONSPIRACIES

lolk

Until my post, I'm the first Mavs fan in this thread.

[Cry Havoc]

That's the main reason I could see number 5 being argued. It certainly does seem that McDyess impedes the progress of Dirk there, and Dirk isn't in the paint/doesn't have his back to the basket.

Agreed. I thought yesterday's game was extremely tough to officiate. Both teams played too physically. If anything, there should have been more calls on both ends of the floor, but that's usually what happens when you get two closely matched teams in the playoffs, especially the WC, where it's typically more physical.

There was a lot of contact that -could- have been called on almost every play last night. The refs missed a lot, or neglected to call much of it -- but I thought they did an "OK" job considering how ramped up both teams were.

I thought the officiating might have slightly favored the Spurs, but nothing remotely out of the ordinary, and definitely not to conspiracy levels as the video is attempting to suggest.

I'd have to say the Mavs fans on this board have been pretty good sports about the game last night. There has been very little whining from them, and mostly they're blaming their own team. The only one who seems to be really upset about it is mogrovejo. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

There was a lot of contact that -could- have been called on almost every play last night. The refs missed a lot, or neglected to call much of it -- but I thought they did an "OK" job considering how ramped up both teams were.


My feeling on things like this, if the refs are going to let BOTH teams play hard, then the team not playing hard needs to adjust.

This happens in football alot too, where the refs determine how much holding they'll allow. If one team starts holding a ton, and the refs aren't calling it, the other team should start doing it too. Now if the refs only call out ONE team... yeah, that's BS.

If the Spurs hand-check and get away with it, then Carlisle needs to tell his men to do the same until the refs start calling it.

[z0sa]

If the Spurs hand-check and get away with it, then Carlisle needs to tell his men to do the same until the refs start calling it.

RC doesn't seem to know much about truly effective adjustments. He goes off a gut feeling on most playcalls and even the rotation.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I could see the argument for #2 and #5, as it looks like Parker gets a lot of arm on that pass and McDyess hooks with his arm as he attempts to drive. Those are calls that I've seen whistled or over looked plenty of times in any playoff game.

In all honesty if Dirk was 6'5 he might have gotten any of those called for him. The ugly reality of the league is that there's a different set of rules for "big men" and for "perimeter players". Dirk plays more like a perimeter player some times but the contact that gets permitted on him is more consistent with him being a big man. It's the same reason Dwight Howard looks like he's going to piss his pants every time he gets into foul trouble. 7 footers get knocked around plenty, guards get the whistles.

[Cry Havoc]

My feeling on things like this, if the refs are going to let BOTH teams play hard, then the team not playing hard needs to adjust.

This happens in football alot too, where the refs determine how much holding they'll allow. If one team starts holding a ton, and the refs aren't calling it, the other team should start doing it too. Now if the refs only call out ONE team... yeah, that's BS.

If the Spurs hand-check and get away with it, then Carlisle needs to tell his men to do the same until the refs start calling it.

I dunno, I saw a lot of pretty heavy contact by the Mavs players last night, too. They played good defense for long stretches in the 1st, 2nd, and a short stint in the 4th quarter. Obviously the Spurs were more aggressive, but the Mavs allowed it by taking jumpshots all series instead of driving.

I mean, JJ Barea has been the guy who's got the most penetration in this series for Dallas. That says all you need to know about the mindset of Terry, Butler, Marion, etc. When the smallest guy on the floor is the ONLY player attacking for you, it's a miracle you manage to stay close in the game at any point.

[dickface]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

[MaNu4Tres]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.


In my honest opinion I see only 1 or 2 fouls of the "5" counted.

Missed calls are missed on both sides throughout the course of the game.

I just thought it was ludicrous to make a video on the type of the 2 fouls that I counted.

At the end of the day Mavs were called for 22 fouls, Spurs 20.

Mavs have just been outplayed these 4 games.

It's clear by looking at the shooting percentages from every game this series, which Spurs have the upper hand. Meaning they are playing the better defense and just playing more efficiently overall on both sides of the floor. The only game Mavs were able to pull off was when they shot 20 more free throws.


Referees aren't the reason Mavs are down 3-1.

What part of that don't you understand?

[dbestpro]

Dirk is getting the shit fouled out of him......I can't even deny that.

The officiating in the NBA has become a joke, it has really turned me off over the last couple of years. Basketball used to be my favorite sport, that is no longer the case. There isn't another sport in this country that has officiating that's as inconsistent as the NBA.....it a joke.

What do you want, a foul called in every play? Because if we want to look at every detail then their is a foul on every play. The Rockets are one of the more aggresive teams, which I respect. The aggressive teams tend to get the calls. That is the unwritten rule. If you can't figure that out or you can't agree with it then we might as well put 10 guys 5 foot 5 who can shoot free throws on the court because that is all that is left.

The problem occurs when their is a huge free throw disparity for a home court team or a jump shooting team, then everything is thrown into question. The one thing I do agree is we need more continuity from ref to ref on how the game is called.

[Warlord23]

That's not a foul in the picture. Of course Dampier does it all the freaking time. You don't know the rules.

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. You're an idiot who's probably rehashing someone else's posts from another forum.

Dampier always initiates contact with Duncan using his hands. It doesn't matter whether the player is in the low post or above the long elbow. You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

[Warlord23]

mogrovejo post #1:

b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check

mogrovejo post #2:

Spur fan think that Dampier defending Duncan posting up down low should be called the same way of Dice defending Dirk facing up above the long elbow. It's amazing.

You can't own yourself any better than that, folks.

[barbacoataco]

The games that Mavs fans are complaining about the Spurs didn't have a big advantage in FT attempts. And the Spurs are driving to the basket more, while the Mavs are more of a jump shooting 3 pt team.

If there is some "conspiracy" the refs are somehow doing it while giving more or less equal FT attempts to both teams?

[Tmac&Luther]

You would've absolutely hated watching the Celtics-Lakers battles of the 80's. The NBA was VERY physical back in the day. That shit on Dirk would've been comletely ignored in that era. Those are little girl fouls.

:rolleyes Umm actually I LOVED WATCHING BASKETBALL IN THE 80's, but that has NOTHING to do with this thread.

Would I love basketball to be that physical again....yes

But guess what buddy, it's not and you're not even making a relative point to this topic by bringing it up. If the NBA let everybody be physical to everybody (like they did in the 80's) that's one thing, but when they don't allow players to be physical to everybody and just against one player....that's called inconsistentcy......which is called SHITTY OFFICIATING. Regardless of how physical they were back in the 80s which has absolutely nothing to do with the inconsistency of today's officiating.

If they let everybody beat the hell out of each other then go ahead....as long as it's consistent I don't give a rats ass, but they aren't even officiating their own rules...no other league does that. Every other league calls the game by the rule that is written. The NBA is the only league where different rules apply to different players and it's shitty. Hell LeBron could walk all the way to NY and he would never be called for traveling.

[Tmac&Luther]

What do you want, a foul called in every play? Because if we want to look at every detail then their is a foul on every play. The Rockets are one of the more aggresive teams, which I respect. The aggressive teams tend to get the calls. That is the unwritten rule. If you can't figure that out or you can't agree with it then we might as well put 10 guys 5 foot 5 who can shoot free throws on the court because that is all that is left.

The problem occurs when their is a huge free throw disparity for a home court team or a jump shooting team, then everything is thrown into question. The one thing I do agree is we need more continuity from ref to ref on how the game is called.

I want consistency.....that is all. I'm not trying to defend Dirk or the Mavs, I'm blasting the worst officiated league in professional sports and alot of my complaints have nothing to do with this game, but the entire league/games in general.

There is absolutely no way anybody can defend the NBA officials......everybody knows they suck ass.

[badfish22]

Defintley some fouls in there. The 3rd quarter was full of bullshit calls/nocalls against the Mavs tbh.


Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

:lmao

Referees aren't the reason Mavs are down 3-1.


+1

[Cry Havoc]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Keyword.


Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

The only person in this thread that's butthurt is a Celtics fan. Calling other people retards when your own knowledge of NBA rules is severely limited is not a way to get a point across. Most Spurs fans have acknowledged that there was a foul or two in that possession, but several non-Spurs fans have said that it was within the flow of the game and the officiating needs to be more consistent for both teams.

The officials didn't force the Mavs to start clanking every shot in the 3rd quarter. They certainly didn't make them a team reliant on JJ Barea for dribble-drive penetration.

[mogrovejo]

What an unbelievable bunch of retards. How is it possible that so many alleged "basketball fans" aren't even aware of some basic urles of the game?


Clearly you have zero room to be telling people about whether they no the rules or not, when you think that any time a defensive player touches an offensive player who's faced up that it's a "hand-check" foul.

Says who? Please quote me saying that. If you can't, you're just shamelessly using a strawman. Can you quote me or not? Direct question.

The rule in question here is "the handchecking rule". How hard is this to understand?

MCDyess fouls Dirk there.


The playoffs are physical. If those are 5 fouls on Dice, Dampier and Haywood should not ever see action past the second quarter because of the way they play Duncan.

Unbelievable. These guys have no idea that the game in the low post is refereed in a different way. Unfuckingbelievable.

[mogrovejo]

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. You're an idiot who's probably rehashing someone else's posts from another forum.

Dampier always initiates contact with Duncan using his hands. It doesn't matter whether the player is in the low post or above the long elbow. You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.


mogrovejo post #1:


mogrovejo post #2:


You can't own yourself any better than that, folks.

Please, somebody tell me this guy is trolling!?!?!?

IT DOES MATTER IF A PLAYER IS ABOVE THE ELBOW OR IN THE LOW POST,
STUPID.

HOW CAN YOU PRETEND TO BE A BASKETBALL FAN AND DON'T KNOW THIS?

I only quoted the part of the rules applicable to the situation.

The rules to Dampier guarding Duncan in the low post are different!! Dampier has his forearm on Duncan and he can do that! McDyess has his hands all over Dirk, puts an hand on Dirk's back when he's on the move and he can't do that!

It's a foul.

[JamStone]

In my opinion, there was a foul by Parker on his double team. It looked pretty obvious he smacked Dirk. Other than that, you could argue that Dice got him maybe once, but it's the type of foul that isn't criminal if it isn't called. It just looked like good, tough defense. Sure you could argue Dirk got fouled once, maybe twice. But I don't think it was egregious that no foul was called. For me, that's just good, tough playoff defense. I'd rather see the officials allow players to play a little physical in the playoffs without ticky tacky fouls getting called all the time.

As for the series in general, I think it's been great. I do think the Spurs have the obvious advantage at this point and should win the series. But, I also think that the series has been pretty even and not necessarily indicative of a 3-1 series. The last two games were pretty close and could have gone either way. The Spurs have earned each of their wins, but the series has been closer than 3-1.

[mogrovejo]

I thought the first 2 guys were just homers pretending they weren't seeing the contact, but afterall some of these guys just don't know the rules and think that the position of a player on the court doesn't matter.

How the heck can you watch a basketball game without knowing this rules? Don't these guys find intriguing, if they think that, say, Dampier's contract can be equated to contact from a perimeter player, how refs call games? How perimeter players get so many touch fouls but post players are in contact every time down the floor and the refs don't call it!?! They've never questioned that? They think it's the refs deciding subjectively?! This is probably why they complain Duncan doesn't get enough fouls.

Unbelievable.

[Cry Havoc]

Please, somebody tell me this guy is trolling!?!?!?

IT DOES MATTER IF A PLAYER IS ABOVE THE ELBOW OR IN THE LOW POST,
STUPID.

HOW CAN YOU PRETEND TO BE A BASKETBALL FAN AND DON'T KNOW THIS?

I only quoted the part of the rules applicable to the situation.

The rules to Dampier guarding Duncan in the low post are different!! Dampier has his forearm on Duncan and he can do that! McDyess has his hands all over Dirk, puts an hand on Dirk's back when he's on the move and he can't do that!

It's a foul.

:lol

mogrovejo meltdown forum.

[mogrovejo]

You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

If I do this, will you post here again, reckoning you have no idea about the basic rules of the game of basketball and are a sorry, hopeless, ignorant homer? Yes or no?

[mogrovejo]

:lol

mogrovejo meltdown forum.

So, you didn't know that the rule changes depending on where the player is on the floor?

No more officiating related arguments?

[Cry Havoc]

So, you didn't know that the rule changes depending on where the player is on the floor?

No more officiating related arguments?


Don't you think that in that play Nowitzki is holding the ball and Dice initiates contact with his hands? It seems pretty obvious to me.

You say nothing about a hand-check here. It's obvious you were referencing the fact that you think (thought) touching Dirk = a foul. Self-owned. :lol

[mogrovejo]

The fact that McDyess initiates the contact with his hands is necessary to make it a foul. How hard is this to understand?

How many basketball games have you guys played or watched in your life? You've started this year, right?

[mogrovejo]

You say nothing about a hand-check here. It's obvious you were referencing the fact that you think (thought) touching Dirk = a foul. Self-owned. :lol

Are you this dumb?

Why would I need to say anything about hand-check there? I only mentioned hand-check to say that if those weren't fouls, than hand-check defence would still be allowed in the NBA.

Capisce? Need a draw?

[mogrovejo]

If I do this, will you post here again, reckoning you have no idea about the basic rules of the game of basketball and are a sorry, hopeless, ignorant homer? Yes or no?

I want to know the answer Warlord.

From you to, Cry Havoc.

[Cry Havoc]

The fact that McDyess initiates the contact with his hands is necessary to make it a foul. How hard is this to understand?

How many basketball games have you guys played or watched in your life? You've started this year, right?

A fellow Celtics fan essentially called you out, mog.

"A defender may momentarily touch an opponent with his hand anywhere on the court as long as it does not affect the opponent’s movement (speed, quickness, balance, rhythm)."

You're wrong. You're just wrong. Man up and admit that you were calling people retards without fully understanding the rules.

[mogrovejo]

A fellow Celtics fan essentially called you out, mog.

"A defender may momentarily touch an opponent with his hand anywhere on the court as long as it does not affect the opponent’s movement (speed, quickness, balance, rhythm)."

You're wrong. You're just wrong. Man up and admit that you were calling people retards without fully understanding the rules.

You are retard. McDyess forces Dirk to pick his dribble. Are you really saying he didn't affect the opponent's movement? And I'm not sure you understand that rule either. I suspect that you think a player must be in movement or otherwise defenders can just place their hands on him. Is that it?

Please answer my question.

[Cry Havoc]

Not even sure what you're arguing any more. My initial position stands: yes, they should have called fouls there. You can't see fouls in that video. You're hopeless. Btw, learn the rules instead of spitting nonsense like "they're called incidental contact". You don't have the slightest idea in your mind of what incidental contact is.

Incidental Contact: The mere fact that contact occurs does not mean a foul has been committed. Players are allowed to contact other players when reaching for a loose ball, or when performing normal offensive and defensive movements. The hand is considered “ part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball and contact with a players hand when it is in contact with the ball is not a foul.

More thread fail from mogrovejo.


You are retard.

:lmao

[Pero]

You're wrong. You're just wrong. Man up and admit that you were calling people retards without fully understanding the rules.

He's too emotional. :lol

[mogrovejo]

Not that I'm complaining that much, Dice has paid a high price all year to get this kind of respect when it matters (and he's one of my favorite spurs) but you'd have to be a homer to try to argue those aren't fouls.

Either a homer or someone who's learning rules by reading a message board.

[Cry Havoc]

Either a homer or someone who's learning rules by reading a message board.

On the same page of the thread you're commenting in:

Cry Havoc: Most Spurs fans have acknowledged that there was a foul or two in that possession, but several non-Spurs fans have said that it was within the flow of the game and the officiating needs to be more consistent for both teams.

Clearly Jamstone is just too much of a Spurs homer to see how Dirk was fouled 5 times in that possession. :lol

[mogrovejo]

What's even more amazing is that jut a few days ago I had to explain how the position the offensive player has on the floor impacts the way personal fouls are called and how much contact is allowed. And yet, here we are again, with WarLord and Cry Havoc completely oblivious to the fact.

WarLord and Cry Havoc, I keep waiting for your answers. We can even make a bet. Okay?

[mogrovejo]

Sig bet, Cry Havoc»?

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

If I do this, proving that Duncan/Dampier and Dirk/Dice are two separate issues, I will own your sig till the end of the playoffs. If I'm unable to do it, you own mine.

Are you going to man up or chicken out?

[Cry Havoc]

Sig bet, Cry Havoc»?

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

If I do this, proving that Duncan/Dampier and Dirk/Dice are two separate issues, I will own your sig till the end of the playoffs. If I'm unable to do it, you own mine.

Are you going to man up or chicken out?

:lol

Why would I bet with you? You've already openly stated that you think touching another player is a foul. You've owned yourself in this thread enough. I don't need to bet with you to prove anything. :lol

[mogrovejo]

Sig bet, Cry Havoc? Are you a chicken?


You've already openly stated that you think touching another player is a foul.

No I didn't. Pull a quote or stop repeating a lie.

Anyway, sig bet?

Yes or no?

Are you going to be a coward?

[mogrovejo]

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

------

I can tell you where the rule distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

Sig bet? It only takes a simple "Yes" or "No, I'm an ignorant chicken".

[Shastafarian]

That's not a foul in the picture. Of course Dampier does it all the freaking time. You don't know the rules.

What is Dampier's left arm doing?

[Cry Havoc]

Sig bet, Cry Havoc? Are you a chicken?

http://store.infinitecoolness.com/coolposters/personalities/michaeljfox/michaeljfoxposter001.jpg

[mogrovejo]

What is Dampier's left arm doing?

I don't know, it's not visible. Are you saying he's fouling Duncan but the problem is that we can't see it?

"Yeah, there's a foul, it's just not visible in that photo". Okay. :rolleyes

[mogrovejo]

http://store.infinitecoolness.com/coolposters/personalities/michaeljfox/michaeljfoxposter001.jpg

Are you answering or not?

Will you man up and take the bet?

What does it tell about you if you accuse others of not knowing the rules, you dare them to prove their point and then you are unwilling to put your money, or sig, where your mouth is?

Come on, girl. Sig bet? Are you too weak and coward for that? After all, if you're right, what's your problem?

Or were you talking just out of your mouth?

[Shastafarian]

That's not a foul in the picture. Of course Dampier does it all the freaking time. You don't know the rules.


I don't know, it's not visible. Are you saying he's fouling Duncan but the problem is that we can't see it?

"Yeah, there's a foul, it's just not visible in that photo". Okay. :rolleyes

I'm saying you're being a huge prick for no reason. The guy posted a picture that might or might not be a foul. If Dampier's arm is up on Duncan, which he also does, then it's a foul. But you jump to conclusions.

Here ya go big guy:

http://www.monettoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/midol.jpg

[mogrovejo]

I'm saying you're being a huge prick for no reason. The guy posted a picture that might or might not be a foul. If Dampier's arm is up on Duncan, which he also does, then it's a foul. But you jump to conclusions.

Here ya go big guy:



Which part of, and I quote that same guy:

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

you don't understand?

Am I jumping to conclusions?

And he posted the picture to illustrate that Dampier "fouls" (according to his poor understandign of the rules) Duncan the same way McDyess was fouling Dirk. Are you saying that he posted a picture where no foul is visible to make that point? Really? Is that your point? well, thanks for your contribution, then.

[Shastafarian]

Which part of, and I quote that same guy:

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

you don't understand?

Am I jumping to conclusions?

And he posted the picture to illustrate that Dampier "fouls" (according to his poor understandign of the rules) Duncan the same way McDyess was fouling Dirk. Are you saying that he posted a picture where no foul is visible to make that point? Really? Is that your point? well, thanks for your contribution, then.

I couldn't give a shit what he was trying to say. I'm trying to point out that

1) you dismissed the picture he posted even though there might actually be a foul being committed, regardless of what rule is being broken or not.

and

2) You're acting like a chick on her period. Maybe even worse.

#2 is the main thing.

Is it because you realize the Celtics are gonna get curbstomped in round 2? I'll go with "likely".

[badfish22]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

[mogrovejo]

I couldn't give a shit what he was trying to say. I'm trying to point out that

1) you dismissed the picture he posted even though there might actually be a foul being committed, regardless of what rule is being broken or not.

and

2) You're acting like a chick on her period. Maybe even worse.

#2 is the main thing.

Is it because you realize the Celtics are gonna get curbstomped in round 2? I'll go with "likely".

Whatever. Make shorter posts.

------------


Cry Havoc and War Lord, I keep waiting for your answers. I'll keep reminding you till you actually bother to answer or you admit you were completely ignorant of the rules of the game.

[Shank]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

[Shastafarian]

Whatever. Make shorter posts.


Thanks for the advice :tu

My advice for you would be to take a break, cool down, come back and see if you can talk to people without calling them all retards.

[Cry Havoc]

Cry Havoc and War Lord, I keep waiting for your answers.

I'll keep waiting for you to show me quotes where I stated that no fouls should have been called on that sequence.

[DarrinS]

:rolleyes Umm actually I LOVED WATCHING BASKETBALL IN THE 80's, but that has NOTHING to do with this thread.

Would I love basketball to be that physical again....yes

But guess what buddy, it's not and you're not even making a relative point to this topic by bringing it up. If the NBA let everybody be physical to everybody (like they did in the 80's) that's one thing, but when they don't allow players to be physical to everybody and just against one player....that's called inconsistentcy......which is called SHITTY OFFICIATING. Regardless of how physical they were back in the 80s which has absolutely nothing to do with the inconsistency of today's officiating.

If they let everybody beat the hell out of each other then go ahead....as long as it's consistent I don't give a rats ass, but they aren't even officiating their own rules...no other league does that. Every other league calls the game by the rule that is written. The NBA is the only league where different rules apply to different players and it's shitty. Hell LeBron could walk all the way to NY and he would never be called for traveling.


I already said Dirk got screwed on that call based on today's rules. I just happen to think that today's rules are lame and were created to enable "exciting" (i.e. soft) teams like the Mavs and Suns to run back and forth trading jump shots.

[mogrovejo]

Thanks for the advice :tu

My advice for you would be to take a break, cool down, come back and see if you can talk to people without calling them all retards.

I don't call all people retards. I only apply that word to retards.


I'll keep waiting for you to show me quotes where I stated that no fouls should have been called on that sequence.

That's not what the bet is about. I'm not saying you stated that no fouls should have been called - even though it's nice to see everybody is in agreement that fouls should have been called. Don't try to pedalback or to confuse things.

Sig bet or not?

[mogrovejo]

I already said Dirk got screwed on that call based on today's rules. I just happen to think that today's rules are lame and were created to enable "exciting" (i.e. soft) teams like the Mavs and Suns to run back and forth trading jump shots.

Completely disagree; it's precisely the opposite. Without today's rules you'd see a lot more of jump-shots/a lot less of penetration and dribble drives.

[TD4THREE]

Please, somebody tell me this guy is trolling!?!?!?

IT DOES MATTER IF A PLAYER IS ABOVE THE ELBOW OR IN THE LOW POST,
STUPID.

HOW CAN YOU PRETEND TO BE A BASKETBALL FAN AND DON'T KNOW THIS?

I only quoted the part of the rules applicable to the situation.

The rules to Dampier guarding Duncan in the low post are different!! Dampier has his forearm on Duncan and he can do that! McDyess has his hands all over Dirk, puts an hand on Dirk's back when he's on the move and he can't do that!

It's a foul.Are you serious?? How many times have you seen a guard back the ball up the court when there's pressure, and then the defender puts his forearm on his back?? It happens all the time. Unless he is impeding the movement of a player it's incidental contact. Same thing with Dice's hand on Dirk's back.

[mogrovejo]

~ You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

Ready to do that... as soon as Cry Havoc/War Lord are man enough to agree to a sig bet.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[mogrovejo]

Are you serious?? How many times have you seen a guard back the ball up the court when there's pressure, and then the defender puts his forearm on his back?? It happens all the time. Unless he is impeding the movement of a player it's incidental contact. Same thing with Dice's hand on Dirk's back.

Sig bet?

[Tmac&Luther]

I already said Dirk got screwed on that call based on today's rules. I just happen to think that today's rules are lame and were created to enable "exciting" (i.e. soft) teams like the Mavs and Suns to run back and forth trading jump shots.

That is why it was created.... Stern (who people act like he's this great commissioner, regardless of the fact that he's ruining the game of basketball) wants stars/great individual "guard" play and not great teams. So he has rules that completely favors the guards today (well atleast "his star guards" :rolleyes ) and kills good post play/post defense.

David Stern sucks dick and I can't wait until his ass is gone. What kind of commissioner doesn't allow teams to question the quality of their officials when it's obvious that the officiating is EXTREMELY questionable at best.

[Shastafarian]

Just because someone is a retard doesn't mean you have to point it out.

[DarrinS]

Completely disagree; it's precisely the opposite. Without today's rules you'd see a lot more of jump-shots/a lot less of penetration and dribble drives.


Well, I guess my point being that the league wants higher scoring games, whether that be from jumpshots or from transition-type (i.e. garbage) points. If defenders are afraid to defend, they are more likely to allow the easy points near the basket.


I think similar rules have hurt the NFL, where you can barely touch a QB these days.

[DarrinS]

That is why it was created.... Stern (who people act like he's this great commissioner, regardless of the fact that he's ruining the game of basketball) wants stars/great individual "guard" play and not great teams. So he has rules that completely favors the guards today (well atleast "his star guards" :rolleyes ) and kills good post play/post defense.

David Stern sucks dick and I can't wait until his ass is gone. What kind of commissioner doesn't allow teams to question the quality of their officials when it's obvious that the officiating is EXTREMELY questionable at best.



I don't disagree with any of this. As a sport, I think the NBA is the worst in terms of consistent officiating.

[mogrovejo]

Well, I guess my point being that the league wants higher scoring games, whether that be from jumpshots or from transition-type (i.e. garbage) points. If defenders are afraid to defend, they are more likely to allow the easy points near the basket.

I agree with the bolded part. But jump-shots generally aren't easy points near the basket and and I don't see how the rules changes affected the transition game that much - in fact, if harsher defence was allowed, it would pump up transition scoring (more steals, turnovers, etc).

If the rules were still the same, you'd actually see more jump-shots and more transition scoring.

[Pero]

Just because someone is a retard doesn't mean you have to point it out.

:lol

I don't know why Spurs fans are arguing though, Spurs won and not simply because of the refs, so who cares if Dirk got fouled 5 times.

[mogrovejo]

Originally Posted by Tmac&Luther http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/nba/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4285730#post4285730)
So he has rules that completely favors the guards today (well atleast "his star guards" :rolleyes ) and kills good post play/post defense.


It's better today than in the 90s (when, btw, Sten was also the commissioner). The game today is way more similar to the 80s than it was 5,10 years ago.


David Stern sucks dick and I can't wait until his ass is gone. What kind of commissioner doesn't allow teams to question the quality of their officials when it's obvious that the officiating is EXTREMELY questionable at best.

Nosense, teams can question officiating. Heck, the league has a special software for that.

[ElNono]

Watch out!!! He knows the rules!!! Nobody else does!!!

:wakeup

[TD4THREE]

Sig bet?I really don't know what we would be betting on or exactly what your argument is. There have been several definitions on hand checking and incidental contact. It's pretty obvious to me what I posted was correct, hell if you tune into the Charlotte Orlando game you'll see exactly the kind of contact We're talking about and guess what? No calls.

[in2deep]

mogrovejo sounds like a stupid asshole. no wonder he is a celtic fan

[Tmac&Luther]

Completely disagree; it's precisely the opposite. Without today's rules you'd see a lot more of jump-shots/a lot less of penetration and dribble drives.

:lol Without today's rules you'd see how great the game used to be.....back when players had deadly mid range jumpers and crazy back to the basket post moves. That part of the game was a helluva lot more enjoyable then players going one on one and throwing up a three pointer or driving into someone and drawing a cheap foul call.

Plus when of the reason why Stern said he changed the rules was because he wanted to open up the game and scoring.....hell the game was a LOT more high flying and exciting back in the 80s. There are sooo many crappy fouls called today that the action never really gets going.

[mogrovejo]

Watch out!!! He knows the rules!!! Nobody else does!!!

:wakeup

So, you can't do better than a strawman? Quelle surprise.

[ElNono]

So, you can't do better than a strawman? Quelle surprise.

Did you post the rules?

[mogrovejo]

I really don't know what we would betting on or exactly what your argument is. There have been several definitions on hand checking and incidental contact.

Really? I don't know. I know the NBA rules and the FIBA ones.

My argument is that the kind and degree of contact the refs should allow depends on what is the player's position on the floor. It started with the "Dampier does the same thing with Duncan and it's never called a foul" argument.

[mogrovejo]

Did you post the rules?

What rules?

[badfish22]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

[Tmac&Luther]

It's better today than in the 90s (when, btw, Sten was also the commissioner). The game today is way more similar to the 80s than it was 5,10 years ago.

:lmao What!




Nonsense, teams can question officiating. Heck, the league has a special software for that.

:lol Not publicly...everything has to be behind closed doors. You openly question "his refs" you get slammed with a 100,000 dollar fine.

[ElNono]

What rules?

The rules this entire conversation is circling around and the one you've identified and been arguing since page 1 of this thread...

[DarrinS]

I agree with the bolded part. But jump-shots generally aren't easy points near the basket and and I don't see how the rules changes affected the transition game that much - in fact, if harsher defence was allowed, it would pump up transition scoring (more steals, turnovers, etc).

If the rules were still the same, you'd actually see more jump-shots and more transition scoring.


Your logic makes sence, but it doesn't hold up to the stats.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/04/22/aldridge.defenses/





Doc Rivers knew when his time was running out as a player.

"The first year, they took my hand check away," Rivers recalled. "The next year, they took our forearm away. And then, I retired. I was done. I was like, 'I've got to move my feet? I quit. This is no fun anymore.'"

For 13 seasons, Rivers made a very good living in the NBA as one of the league's best on-ball defenders. Tall (6-foot-4) and strong, able to use his hands to steer opponents away from the basket, able to clip guards moving without the ball from their desired routes around the court. But the style that helped his Hawks teams get to the Playoffs and that put his 1994 New York Knicks team in the Finals is now a relic, consigned to the basement in Pat Riley's head.

You still have to play defense to win NBA championships. But now, you have to do it without fouling.

With the Playoffs underway, the teams that can slow their opponents down without putting them on the free throw line have a decided advantage. But that's much harder than in Rivers' day, when the Knicks would establish how the game would be called in the first five minutes by being as physical as possible, daring referees to call every bump and hold. Most times, the refs would ultimately let a lot of contact go, which is precisely what Riley wanted.

But the league has gradually legislated that kind of defense out of the game.

Since 1990, the NBA has instituted a series of rules changes to increase the offensive player's flow and make physical play costly. First came increased penalties for flagrant fouls (1990) and fighting (1993), the implementation of the "five points" rule that called for automatic suspensions of players who amassed a certain number of flagrants (1993). Hand checking was eliminated in 1994. Using the forearm to defend players facing the basket went away in 1997.

In 1999, the league eliminated contact by a defender with his hands and forearms both in the backcourt and frontcourt, except on offensive players who caught the ball below the free throw line extended. Defenses were also prohibited from "re-routing" players off the ball. This freed up perimeter players who used screens to get open. Nor were defenders able any more to grab or impede offensive players setting screens. In 2001, the defensive three-second rule eliminated defenders camping out in the lane away from their offensive man to help.

The rules changes did what they were supposed to do -- open up the game. Scoring average has increased from an average 95.6 points per game in the 1997-98 season to this year's 100 per game. Overall field goal percentage has increased from 45.0 percent in '97-'98 to 45.9 percent this season. Three-point percentage has gone up, from .346 11 years ago to .367 this season. And fouls have gone down, from a league average of 1,837 fouls in 1997 to 1,726 this season. The statistical-based Basketball Prospectus wrote at the beginning of this season that the game's pace -- defined as possessions per game -- had increased from its nadir during the lockout season of 1999 (around 88 possessions per game) to around 91 per game in the 2007-08 season.

Free-flowing offense is now the norm, with players able to go almost unencumbered anywhere on the court. As such, the game's most dominant individual players and those that are just good at drawing contact have even more of a chance to get to the foul line. So stars like Dwight Howard (the league leader in free throw attempts this season with 849), Dwyane Wade (second, 771) and LeBron James (third, 762) can have an even more outsized impact on games.

"You can't even touch a guy now," says Charlotte coach Larry Brown. "The college game is much more physical than our game. I always tease Michael [Jordan], if he played today, he'd average 50."

.....

[nkdlunch]

mogrovejo sounds like a stupid asshole. no wonder he is a celtic fan

[mogrovejo]

Without today's rules you'd see how great the game used to be.....back when players had deadly mid range jumpers and crazy back to the basket post moves. That part of the game was a helluva lot more enjoyable then players going one on one and throwing up a three pointer or driving into someone and drawing a cheap foul call.

Yeah, but then again they weren't as big and fast as they are today. I think people get confused with the rules change story. There's a lot let of 1x1 play since the rules changed.


Plus when of the reason why Stern said he changed the rules was because he wanted to open up the game and scoring.....hell the game was a LOT more high flying and exciting back in the 80s. There are sooo many crappy fouls called today that the action never really gets going.

There's a contradiction/confusion there. The game was way faster and exciting in the 80s because there was a lot less contact, not because they'd just them punk each other.

If it wasn't for the rules change, you'd have the same grind out, shove and grab them, 1 player dribbling the ball 20 seconds at the top of the key and then going for a clearout, type of game you had in the 90s, early 00s - not the game you had in the 80s.

[mogrovejo]

The rules this entire conversation is circling around and the one you've identified and been arguing since page 1 of this thread...

Sure, I've posted part of them. Other parts I will post as soon as Cry Havoc/War Lord accept my bet.

I can't post the entire rule book. What would be the purpose. Not sure if I understand your question.


Your logic makes sence, but it doesn't hold up to the stats.

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/04/22/aldridge.defenses/

Hmm, yes it does. As I say - Free-flowing offense is now the norm - more like the 80s, less like the 90s.

[Tmac&Luther]

Yeah, but then again they weren't as big and fast as they are today. I think people get confused with the rules change story. There's a lot let of 1x1 play since the rules changed.

There were PLENTY of athletes back in the 80s, what are you talking about. There were a shitload of more quality bigs back in those days as well so size and athleticism wasn't a issue. And there isn't alot less 1x1 play today...do you even watch the NBA today or did you even watch it back in the day? The overall skill set of players have dropped dramatically. The supposed best big man today (Howard) doesn't even have legit go to post moves. Howard would be average at best back in the day when you had bigs like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwan, and O'Neil who were ALL SKILLED UP.....because they had to be.



There's a contradiction/confusion there. The game was way faster and exciting in the 80s because there was a lot less contact, not because they'd just them punk each other.

:lmao There was alot less contact, because players were allowed to enforce and hand out their own justice on the court......not be awarded foul shots for any damn bullshit ticky tack contact and flopping.


If it wasn't for the rules change, you'd have the same grind out, shove and grab them, 1 player dribbling the ball 20 seconds at the top of the key and then going for a clearout, type of game you had in the late 90s, early 00s - not the game you had in the 80s.

Yeah, that's why all the games back then were grind it out, shove and grab back in the day.....oh wait they weren't :rolleyes Go back and pull up some of the boxscores from the early to mid nineties...scoring was through the roof.

[DarrinS]

Hmm, yes it does. As I say - Free-flowing offense is now the norm - more like the 80s, less like the 90s.


Then why all the rule changes in the 90's to make it extremely hard to play physical defense? Doesn't seem to be consistent with their desire for more offense -- according to your logic.

[DarrinS]

There were PLENTY of athletes back in the 80s, what are you talking about. There were a shitload of more quality bigs back in those days as well so size and athleticism wasn't a issue. And there isn't alot less 1x1 play today...do you even watch the NBA today or did you even watch it back in the day? The overall skill set of players have dropped dramatically. The supposed best big man today (Howard) doesn't even have go to post moves.


That's what I was thinking.

Would Howard even seem that freakishly athletic if the NBA still had Olajuwon, D.Rob, and Ewing?

[angrydude]

scoring went down in the late 90's because all the great players started retiring and everyone in the league sucked in comparison.

the rules we have today are designed to make lesser quality players look good because they can get fouled all the time. consequently you don't have to be as good as you did during the 80's and 90's to have success. So it doesn't happen.

[ElNono]

Sure, I've posted part of them. Other parts I will post as soon as Cry Havoc/War Lord accept my bet.

Somebody already posted the relevant rules in this thread. Mind you, it wasn't you.


I can't post the entire rule book. What would be the purpose. Not sure if I understand your question.

I didn't ask any questions. Furthermore, I wasn't even addressing my post to you at all. Do you read 'mogrovejo' in my original post?

Now, I completely understand why you would be so quick to answer my post. As a matter of fact, most everyone reading this thread would. But that says a lot more about you, than it does about the subject at hand...

[mogrovejo]

There were PLENTY of athletes back in the 80s, what are you talking about. There were a shitload of more quality bigs back in those days as well so size and athleticism wasn't a issue. And there isn't alot less 1x1 play today...do you even watch the NBA today or did you even watch it back in the day? The overall skill set of players have dropped dramatically. The supposed best big man today (Howard) doesn't even have legit go to post moves. Howard would be average at best back in the day when you had bigs like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwan, and O'Neil who were ALL SKILLED UP.....because they had to be.


:lmao There was alot less contact, because players were allowed to enforce and hand out their own justice on the court......not be awarded foul shots for any damn bullshit ticky tack contact and flopping.


Yeah, that's why all the games back then were grind it out, shove and grab back in the day.....oh wait they weren't :rolleyes Go back and pull up some of the boxscores from the early to mid nineties...scoring was through the roof.

You can't mix the 80s with the 90s post Pistons, the Riley's Knicks, etc. Two very different styles of basketball, in fact they were opposite. It seems your mixing both and that just doesn't make sense at all.

There have been lots of rules changes through the last 30 years or so. Some of them are rarely talked about but affected the game - for example, the 5 seconds rule was a big factor in bringing down the importance of the low post game and yet you didn't even mention it.

It's a mistake to look for some kind of linear transposition from the rules changes to the game. It didn't happened like that. First, there were rules which were changed but the change wasn't really enforced for many years.

For example, hand-checking was disallowed in the late 70s - which contributed to the explosion of scoring in the 80s. Then the zone defenses were eliminated with the illegal defence rule - and teams started using the "disallowed" hand-checking more and more. The Pistons with Daly were specially adept of using their hands a lot and their success lead to a change on the way teams were build and eventually to a change in game style that culminated with the Knicks with Riley.

That was a change in philosophy whose primary cause was a previous change in rules. The scoring dropped dramatically - to the point that the league did that silly shorter 3 point line thing. The games get really ugly because on average the players were bigger and faster, able to recover more ground in the same time. Then the league altered all the rules in 2002 (radically outlawing any kind of hand-checking) - but not all of those changes were immediately enforced on the court. A few years later they made a clarification and referees started enforcing the rules - I think it was in 2005 when all the scoring from guards, especially dribble drive guards like Wade, Kobe, etc. exploded. Since then, fouls like those we see on this video are called 99% of the time.

Anyway: zone defenses (limited by the 3 seconds rule) + strict rules against hand-checking lead to a huge difference in style. You see more player+ball movement in NBA half-courts now than in any other era.

Your middle paragraph is just nonsense, btw. That's a myth. Yeah, the league was less strict punishing fights and hard fouls, but it wasn't like that.

[mogrovejo]

Somebody already posted the relevant rules in this thread. Mind you, it wasn't you.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Are you sure? Are you sure others posted rules and I didn't?

[mogrovejo]

Cry Havoc/War Lord, still waiting for your answers. Sig bet or not? Are you going to man up and accept the bet?

[ElNono]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Are you sure? Are you sure others posted rules and I didn't?

I said somebody else did, and it wasn't you. Am I wrong?

Again, I still don't know why you jumped at my post at all. Oh wait, yeah, I know why... :lmao :lmao :lmao

[mogrovejo]

ElNono, please link or quote the posts where others posted relevant rules, please.

[DarrinS]

Personally, I think all the ticky-tack foul calling leads to games that are thoroughly less watchable.


Example: 2006 NBA finals

[mogrovejo]

Personally, I think all the ticky-tack foul calling leads to games that are thoroughly less watchable.


Example: 2006 NBA finals

Yeah, you should have watched the game in 99 or so.

[ElNono]

ElNono, please link or quote the posts where others posted relevant rules, please.

Post #46 in this very same thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4284174&postcount=46)

[mogrovejo]

Again, I still don't know why you jumped at my post at all.

What? I replied to it. Why? Because I wanted to. It's how a message board works. If you're going to get intrigued because people are answering or commenting your posts here, I'm not really sure what to say. Maybe you don't understand the concept of a message board? I don't know, that seems very odd to me.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah, but then again they weren't as big and fast as they are today. I think people get confused with the rules change story. There's a lot let of 1x1 play since the rules changed.



There's a contradiction/confusion there. The game was way faster and exciting in the 80s because there was a lot less contact, not because they'd just them punk each other.

If it wasn't for the rules change, you'd have the same grind out, shove and grab them, 1 player dribbling the ball 20 seconds at the top of the key and then going for a clearout, type of game you had in the 90s, early 00s - not the game you had in the 80s.

No mames.... this post is so full of it. Are you seriously going to argue the 80's teams played with less contact? Did you watch the Bulls, Blazers, Pistons, Knicks, Pacers, Jazz teams from back then? They were brutal, man! Brutal. It's all on you tube if you need a refresher.

Offensive/defensive strategy may have changed to favor half-court sets in the 90's (to respond to the strange influx of talented bigs then), but there were always teams that lived on fast-break play, and physicality was a reality for either type of team.

[ElNono]

What? I replied to it. Why? Because I wanted to. It's how a message board works. If you're going to get intrigued because people are answering or commenting your posts here, I'm not really sure what to say. Maybe you don't understand the concept of a message board? I don't know, that seems very odd to me.

Actually, the one with ADD seems to be you, telling me you don't understand my question when I never asked one to begin with...

[ElNono]

No mames.... this post is so full of it. Are you seriously going to argue the 80's teams played with less contact? Did you watch the Bulls, Blazers, Pistons, Knicks, Pacers, Jazz teams from back then? They were brutal, man! Brutal. It's all on you tube if you need a refresher.

Offensive/defensive strategy may have changed to favor half-court sets in the 90's (to respond to the strange influx of talented bigs then), but there were always teams that lived on fast-break play, and physicality was a reality for either type of team.

He's a Boston fan... the 90's never happened...

[mogrovejo]

No mames.... this post is so full of it. Are you seriously going to argue the 80's teams played with less contact? Did you watch the Bulls, Blazers, Pistons, Knicks, Pacers, Jazz teams from back then? They were brutal, man! Brutal. It's all on you tube if you need a refresher.

Offensive/defensive strategy may have changed to favor half-court sets in the 90's (to respond to the strange influx of talented bigs then), but there were always teams that lived on fast-break play, and physicality was a reality for either type of team.

Who the heck was watching the Pacers in the 80s? They were pitiful. I actually watched plenty of their games for other reasons, but why the heck would any average fan watch them?

This only shows that people simply confuse eras.

The 80s were an era of high-scoring, fast-paced, free-wheeling basketball - and very little defence.

The 90s - when the Pacers had all those great teams - were extremely different.

[mogrovejo]

Post #46 in this very same thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4284174&postcount=46)

Nice. I'm not seeing those excerpts in the NBA rules book - unlike the one I quoted in the post #5 of this thread.

What am I missing? Maybe you can say where is that written? Under which number? For example, I quoted from rule nº 12.

[ElNono]

Nice. I'm not seeing those excerpts in the NBA rules book - unlike the one I quoted in the post #5 of this thread.

What am I missing? Maybe you can say where is that written? Under which number? For example, I quoted from rule nº 12.

Are you now claiming the NBA is misrepresenting it's own rules in it's own website?

[mogrovejo]

Are you claiming the NBA is misrepresenting it's own rules in it's own website?

No.

You see, you claimed that others posted "rules" (not clarification of the rules that in some cases aren't even applicable to the rule in question here) and I didn't. To me, it seems the opposite actually happened - I was the only one posting the rules.

So, are you going to answer my questions or not?

I'll repeat them for you:


Nice. I'm not seeing those excerpts in the NBA rules book - unlike the one I quoted in the post #5 of this thread.

What am I missing? Maybe you can say where is that written? Under which number? For example, I quoted from rule nº 12.

[mogrovejo]

LOL at not even knowing how the rules are phrased in the rule-book. LOL at thinking there was actually a rule titled "hand-checking" with a definition of what "hand-checking" is, or an "incidental contact" rule.

[ElNono]

No. Let me repeat my questions:

(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4285961#post4285961)
Nice. I'm not seeing those excerpts in the NBA rules book - unlike the one I quoted in the post #5 of this thread.

What am I missing? Maybe you can say where is that written? Under which number? For example, I quoted from rule nº 12.

You see, you claimed that others poster "rules" (not clarification of the rules that in some cases aren't even applicable to the rule in question here) and I didn't. To me, it seems the opposite.

So, are you going to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying that, and that's now what I said at all.
Please quote where I claimed such a thing?

Furthermore, you didn't post any rules. Just an excerpt of a rule. Which carries as much weight as a clarification of the rules.

Actually, I take that back. A clarification of the rule by no other than the NBA itself carries a lot more weight than the opinion of a armchair referee like you based on an excerpt of the rule book.

Consider your question answered. You may now proceed to keep on embarrassing yourself.

[ElNono]

LOL at not even knowing how the rules are phrased in the rule-book. LOL at thinking there was actually a rule titled "hand-checking" with a definition of what "hand-checking" is, or an "incidental contact" rule.


Are you now claiming the NBA is misrepresenting it's own rules in it's own website?


No.

:lmao

[mogrovejo]

You keep saying that, and that's now what I said at all.
Please quote where I claimed such a thing?.


Somebody already posted the relevant rules in this thread. Mind you, it wasn't you.


You see, you claimed that others posted "rules" (not clarification of the rules that in some cases aren't even applicable to the rule in question here) and I didn't. To me, it seems the opposite actually happened - I was the only one posting the rules.

So, are you going to answer my questions or not?

I'll repeat them for you:


Nice. I'm not seeing those excerpts in the NBA rules book - unlike the one I quoted in the post #5 of this thread.

What am I missing? Maybe you can say where is that written? Under which number? For example, I quoted from rule nº 12.

[mogrovejo]

:lmao

The NBA rules are in their website and aren't misrepresented at all. That's what I've said.

The problem is that what you think are the rules, actually aren't the rules.

[ElNono]

You see, you claimed that others posted "rules" (not clarification of the rules that in some cases aren't even applicable to the rule in question here) and I didn't. To me, it seems the opposite actually happened - I was the only one posting the rules.


So we agree. You do have reading comprehension problems, or are a dumbass, or both.



So, are you going to answer my questions or not?


Your question has already been answered.

[mogrovejo]

Originally Posted by ElNono http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/nba/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4285854#post4285854)
Somebody already posted the relevant rules in this thread. Mind you, it wasn't you.

So, was it me or not?

[mogrovejo]

You just need to answer "Yeah, you actually were the one posting the excerpt of the relevant rule from the official rules book, nobody else did that in this thread", ElNono.

It's not that hard, is it?

[ElNono]

The NBA rules are in their website and aren't misrepresented at all. That's what I've said.

Are you claiming that their interpretation of the rules in their website are misrepresented then? Come on, stop beating around the bush...


The problem is that what you think are the rules, actually aren't the rules.

No, the problem is that you are hanging to a technicality because you've been getting your ass constantly pounded in this thread...

[ElNono]

So, was it me or not?

Are you LnGrrrR?

[ElNono]

You just need to answer "Yeah, you actually were the one posting the excerpt of the relevant rule from the official rules book, nobody else did that in this thread", ElNono.

It's not that hard, is it?

Did you post the relevant rules in this thread? yes or no?

It's not that hard, is it?

[mogrovejo]

Are you claiming that their interpretation of the rules in their website are misrepresented then? Come on, stop beating around the bush..

No, why would I argue that? Can you stop using strawman arguments?

[ElNono]

No, why would I argue that? Can you stop using strawman arguments?

Then you agree that their interpretation of the rule is indeed as informative as the rules themselves?

[admiralsnackbar]

Who the heck was watching the Pacers in the 80s? They were pitiful. I actually watched plenty of their games for other reasons, but why the heck would any average fan watch them?

This only shows that people simply confuse eras.

The 80s were an era of high-scoring, fast-paced, free-wheeling basketball - and very little defence.

The 90s - when the Pacers had all those great teams - were extremely different.
Focusing on the Pacers seems like a deflection, honestly, but whatever.

The Showtime Lakers seem to conform to your account of 80's basketball, but the Celtics from that same era were physical as hell which, as a fan, you should remember. Also, last time I checked, the Bulls and Pistons had some killer, punishing defensive squads in the 80's.

And like I said, the whole slow-it-down ethos of the 90's was a result of a statistically improbable influx of incredibly skilled bigs, not some wholesale aberration from the norm. Physicality was a part of basketball in both decades in a way it no longer is, and the hand-check rule did less to enhance the game (as I think you were alleging?) than to lengthen it to sell more advertising.

[mogrovejo]

Did you post the relevant rules in this thread? yes or no?

What relevant rules?

Can you explain us what are the relevant rules, ElNono? Please, refer to the numbers in the official rule-book.

[mogrovejo]

Then you agree that their interpretation of the rule is indeed as informative as the rules themselves?

Nope, not even close. Those aren't even interpretations of any rule. I mean, which rule are they interpreting with those texts, can you tell us that?

[ElNono]

What relevant rules?

Can you explain us what are the relevant rules, ElNono? Please, refer to the numbers in the official rule-book.

I could, but I have no interest in technicalities such as rule numbers or article numbers. Since you are, you can look them up yourself.

[ElNono]

Nope, not even close. Those aren't even interpretations of any rule. I mean, which rule are they interpreting with those texts, can you tell us that?

So you think that by posting those rule interpretations on their site, they're diluting the meaning of the rule, and thus, misrepresenting the rules themselves?

Furthermore, if they're not the interpretation of any rules, why is the webpage titled 'Explaining the NBA’s Most Misunderstood Rules'?

You think the NBA has an agenda, or you're just simply a dumbass?

[mogrovejo]

Focusing on the Pacers seems like a deflection, honestly, but whatever.

The Showtime Lakers seem to conform to your account of 80's basketball, but the Celtics from that same era were physical as hell which, as a fan, you should remember. Also, last time I checked, the Bulls and Pistons had some killer, punishing defensive squads in the 80's.

And like I said, the whole slow-it-down ethos of the 90's was a result of a statistically improbable influx of incredibly skilled bigs, not some wholesale aberration from the norm. Physicality was a part of basketball in both decades in a way it no longer is, and the hand-check rule did less to enhance the game (as I think you were alleging?) than to lengthen it to sell more advertising.

Yeah, the Celtics weren't really that physical. They were physical relatively to the standard, but not when compared to the

Plus, they were a fast paced team. They were similar to the Lakers. They conform entirely to my account of 80s basketball, Heck, they were even better offensively than defensively.

This just show how many myths about the 80s basketball persist. For example, the Showtime Lakers weren't especially fast paced relatively to their peers.


And of course the game didn't slow down because of an influx of talented bigs. There were plenty of talented bigs in the 70s and the 80s. Heck, that was probably the golden age of bigs.

[mogrovejo]

I could, but I have no interest in technicalities such as rule numbers or article numbers. Since you are, you can look them up yourself.

So, you don't even know what are the "relevant rules" you mentioned?

[LnGrrrR]

mogrovejo sounds like a stupid asshole. no wonder he is a celtic fan

You're a dickface. :toast

[ElNono]

So, you don't even know what are the "relevant rules" you mentioned?

Sure I do. Those that describe 'hand checking' and 'incidental contact'.

[Shastafarian]

You're a dickface. :toast

You gotta admit mogrovejo has had sand in his vagina all day.

[admiralsnackbar]

And of course the game didn't slow down because of an influx of talented bigs. There were plenty of talented bigs in the 70s and the 80s. Heck, that was probably the golden age of bigs.

List this cornucopia of which you speak and I'll see if I can match it with a similar list from the 90's. I expect I'll be able to.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL at not even knowing how the rules are phrased in the rule-book. LOL at thinking there was actually a rule titled "hand-checking" with a definition of what "hand-checking" is, or an "incidental contact" rule.


You just need to answer "Yeah, you actually were the one posting the excerpt of the relevant rule from the official rules book, nobody else did that in this thread", ElNono.

It's not that hard, is it?

Reading you bitch about other teams fans when you sit here and post annoying shit like this makes me laugh so hard.

You really do think so highly of yourself yet I believe you've managed to annoy the shit out of a wide spectrum of people here.

Congrats, superfan.

[mogrovejo]

So you think that by posting those rule interpretations on their site, they're diluting the meaning of the rule, and thus, misrepresenting the rules themselves?

No, they're trying to clarify some points about some basketball rules. That's all.

However, that doesn't make those texts the rules. Capisce? Maybe not.

An actual excerpt of the rule. Unfortunately, you seem unable to comprehend that.







Originally Posted by ElNono http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/nba/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4285854#post4285854)
Somebody already posted the relevant rules in this thread. Mind you, it wasn't you.












I posted an excerpt of the official NBA rule book - an excerpt of the rule applicable to this play.

Lngrrr posted a text from the NBA website where they clarify the meaning of some basketball rules.

ElNono seems to have a complete inability to admit he's wrong (or to admit that he simply thought that what Lngrrr posted were actual rules and that he missed my post, which wouldn't be a big deal).

[MannyIsGod]

you gotta admit mogrovejo has had sand in his vagina since the moment he was born.

fyp

[mogrovejo]

Sure I do. Those that describe 'hand checking' and 'incidental contact'.

Yeah, if those rules exist, it should be easy for you to simply point them out. Just say "it's rule x, article y". Thanks.

[mogrovejo]

I don't really have arguments so I'm going to scream some ad hominem arguments trying to sound clever and hollier than thou

:sleep

[mogrovejo]

Cry Havoc and Warlord, I have to leave, but I'm still expecting you sorry sissies to tell us if you accept the sig bet or not. LOL @ friendly PMs trying to soft me down. It's on your side, chickens.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ you complaining about someone sounding holier than thou.

You're right, I don't have an argument in this thread because I don't really care. I just opened it and noticed immediately what everyone else has also: No one cares if you're even right or wrong anymore they're just amazed at how big of a cunt you are.

It just makes this really funny:


Spursfans are the new Mavsfans/Lakersfans: cocky and brash without much of a reason for it, wildly overrating their team and underrating the competition.

[badfish22]

:lmao

Spur Fan creates thread asking for objective opinions

Spur Fan then gets butthurt when those objective opinions don't help their argument.

[Ghazi]

I agree with all points made by the great and knowledgeable mogrovejo :tu

[mogrovejo]

You're right, I don't have an argument in this thread


:sleep

And yeah, I'm right. That's what infuriates people. Tough luck.

You want to discuss basketball officiating and rules? Go learn them first. At least the basic ones. If you don't know the basic rules and still want to discuss in a cocky and brash way, then you better be ready to have your ass called out.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW Supercunt, in order for me to be making an Ad Homenin argument I'd have to have a side in the fight. I don't. I just made an observation on how ridiculous you are.

[MannyIsGod]

:sleep

And yeah, I'm right. That's what infuriates people. Tough luck.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. The rest of the world is just annoyed because you're better them them.

:lol

Did you almost hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back?

[ElNono]

No, they're trying to clarify some points about some basketball rules. That's all.

However, that doesn't make those texts the rules. Capisce? Maybe not.

An actual excerpt of the rule. Unfortunately, you seem unable to comprehend that.

Oh, I fully understand you're clinging to a technicality. We all know the NBA rule book can be found here: NBA Rules (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html)

And that the excerpts posted by LnGrrrR do more than just clarify some points about some basketball rules.


I posted an excerpt of the official NBA rule book - an excerpt of the rule applicable to this play.

Yes, you posted partial information in order to support your argument. No surprises there.


Lngrrr posted a text from the NBA website where they clarify the meaning of some basketball rules.

Including rules that are applicable to this play.


ElNono seems to have a complete inability to admit he's wrong (or to admit that he simply thought that what Lngrrr posted were actual rules and that he missed my post, which wouldn't be a big deal).

Wrong about what?

[Warlord23]

Looks like I missed a lot. :lmao at this buffoon mogrovejo kicking his own ass for 8 pages now. Keep it up poser. Go search some realgm boards and come back with more "basketball knowledge"

[ElNono]

Yeah, if those rules exist, it should be easy for you to simply point them out. Just say "it's rule x, article y". Thanks.

Are you now claiming that there are no rules describing what is known as 'hand checking' and 'incidental contact'?

Why would the NBA refer to them with those names?

You think the NBA has an agenda, or you're just a dumbass?

[Ghazi]

ya'll need to stop getting into arguments with mogrovejo. His knowledge exceeds all of ours. It's just a futile effort.

[ElNono]

ya'll need to stop getting into arguments with mogrovejo. His knowledge exceeds all of ours. It's just a futile effort.

lol Spurs in 5

[Mavs_man_41]

mogrevo is right, they're hand checking him. but do you know what? i don't really give a shit. that's when you put your head down, drive, and make them call the foul.

"oh gee look, his forearm is stopping my forward motion, i guess i have to shoot it from right here." -Dirk Nowitzki

[mogrovejo]

Looks like I missed a lot. :lmao at this buffoon mogrovejo kicking his own ass for 8 pages now. Keep it up poser. Go search some realgm boards and come back with more "basketball knowledge"


Sig bet or not, chicken? Are you a coward? Are you going to stand for your words?

[mogrovejo]

Are you now claiming that there are no rules describing what is known as 'hand checking' and 'incidental contact'?

Why would the NBA refer to them with those names?

You think the NBA has an agenda, or you're just a dumbass?

(http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4286108#post4286108)
Yeah,if those rules exist, it should be easy for you to simply point them out. Just say "it's rule x, article y". Thanks.

Can you do this or not? Are you going to keep begging the question?

[Warlord23]

Here's the pearl of wisdom that mogrovejo has been waiting to unleash on all of us (roughly paraphrasing):

No contact is allowed with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the frontcourt below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only.

So yes, he has a point that frontcourt officiating is different from backcourt officiating. However, his logic fails because:
a) Dampier uses his hands all the time, not just his forearms
b) Dampier doesn't care where Tim catches the ball before initiating contact. Even if Duncan catches it farther out, Dampier does the same thing.
However, these fouls are not called.

[Shastafarian]

Thought you were leavin bro

[mogrovejo]

It doesn't matter whether the player is in the low post or above the long elbow. You quoted the rule yourself ... tell me where it distinguishes between low post and perimeter.

Warlord, once again:

are you going to take a sig bet?

are you going to admit you were wrong?

[Warlord23]

He's gonna make a few hundred posts on this topic before he's done :lol Can't wait to see this thread tomorrow morning

[ElNono]

(http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4286108#post4286108)
Yeah,if those rules exist, it should be easy for you to simply point them out. Just say "it's rule x, article y". Thanks.

Can you do this or not? Are you going to keep begging the question?

I answered that question many posts ago. You do know how to read previous posts, right?

[Cry Havoc]

I sense epic thread potential.

[LnGrrrR]

You gotta admit mogrovejo has had sand in his vagina all day.

I was only responding to the slur against all Celtics fans. :)

[ElNono]

What I find amusing is that somehow his opinion is 'right' because he can quote excerpts from the rulebook, on rules that are completely open to interpretation.
It's like saying I'm 'right' about what Christianity is because I can quote from the Bible...

[mogrovejo]

He's gonna make a few hundred posts on this topic before he's done :lol Can't wait to see this thread tomorrow morning


I sense epic thread potential.


Ladies, are you going to man up and take the sig bet or not?


I answered that question many posts ago. You do know how to read previous posts, right?

You didn't. Again: simply point them out. Just say "it's rule x, article y". Thanks.

Btw, it seems Warlord disagrees with you; he actually reckons I quoted the rule while you keep saying I didn't quote relevant rules.

It's very odd to me, I don't think anybody can understand that you keep saying that after reading post #5.

[mogrovejo]

What I find amusing is that somehow his opinion is 'right' because he can quote excerpts from the rulebook, on rules that are completely open to interpretation.
It's like saying I'm 'right' about what Christianity is because I can quote from the Bible...
Wait, are you now saying I actually quoted the rules?

[LnGrrrR]

Let's break this down, since the debate is fairly ridiculous.

Mogro: whether or not all those were fouls makes little difference in the long run. If the refs were to call fouls 1, 3, and 4 in each game per the rulebook, the game would consist of nothing but each team shooting FT's, as others have mentioned. The refs obviously allow some physicality, especially in the playoffs.

Since you're acting like the rulebook is some mystical holy book, I'll just post the whole relevant section next.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList

B. Personal Foul

Section I--Types


a. A player shall not hold, push, charge into, impede the progress of an oppo-nent by extending a hand, forearm, leg or knee or by bending the body into a posi-tion that is not normal. Contact that results in the re-routing of an opponent is a foul which must be called immediately.

Per this rule, number 5 would seem to be a foul, as Dirk's progress is impeded. However, in 1-4, it's arguable that contact results in the "rerouting" of Dirk. Neither is it plain as day that the hand-checking "impeded" Dirk's progress. To argue that it is obvious is asinine.



b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.

EXCEPTIONS:
(1) A defender may apply contact with a forearm to an offensive player with the ball who has his back to the basket below the free throw line extend-ed outside the Lower Defensive Box.
(2) A defender may apply contact with a forearm and/or one hand with a bent elbow to an offensive player in a post-up position with the ball in the Lower Defensive Box.
(3) A defender may apply contact with a forearm to an offensive player with the ball at any time in the Lower Defensive Box. The forearm in the above exceptions is solely for the purpose of main-taining a defensive position.
(4) A defender may position his leg between the legs of an offensive player in a post-up position in the Lower Defensive Box for the purpose of main-taining defensive position. If his foot leaves the floor in an attempt to dis-lodge his opponent, it is a foul immediately.
(5) Incidental contact with the hand against an offensive player shall be ignored if it does not affect the player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.


Obviously, exceptions 1-4 don't apply as he was outside the paint completely. So we have to look at 5. Is MacDyess's contact with the hand of Dirk "incidental" in the fouls listed? I would argue yes, as it doesn't seem to affect his speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.


c. Any player whose actions against an opponent cause illegal contact with yet another opponent has committed the personal foul.

Doesn't apply.


d. A personal foul committed by the offensive team during a throw-in shall be an offensive foul, regardless of whether the ball has been released.

Doesn't apply.



e. Contact which occurs on the hand of the offensive player, while that hand is in contact with the ball, is legal.



Another important section. When McDyess is handchecking, is he deliberately trying to hand-check a part of the body that isn't Dirk's hand? From what I see, it looks like he's trying to check Dirk's hands, which is a legal target since it's in contact with the ball. There's room to argue, of course, if that's incidental contact or not.

But to argue that it's clearcut is somewhat silly, in my eyes. People are human; there's going to be some contact with other parts of the body, especially if the man on offense swings his arms. The refs are looking, for the most part, for obvious violations of the rule. People breaking the "spirit" of the law, as it were, rather than robotically whistling whenever a defender's hand graces a body part other than the offensive player's hand outside the box.

[mogrovejo]

Another important section. When McDyess is handchecking, is he deliberately trying to hand-check a part of the body that isn't Dirk's hand? From what I see, it looks like he's trying to check Dirk's hands, which is a legal target since it's in contact with the ball. There's room to argue, of course, if that's incidental contact or not.

Doesn't matter. Think twice about that line of reasoning, you should understand why is it silly.

Players don't need to deliberately trying to hand-check parts of the body that aren't hands to be called for fouls.


But to argue that it's clearcut is somewhat silly, in my eyes. People are human; there's going to be some contact with other parts of the body, especially if the man on offense swings his arms. The refs are looking, for the most part, for obvious violations of the rule. People breaking the "spirit" of the law, as it were, rather than robotically whistling whenever a defender's hand graces a body part other than the offensive player's hand outside the box.


Strawman, nobody argued that.

[mogrovejo]

So we have to look at 5. Is MacDyess's contact with the hand of Dirk "incidental" in the fouls listed? I would argue yes, as it doesn't seem to affect his speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.


Really? That's bizarre. Dirk even needs to pick his dribble because of the contact. It's a lot tougher to play basketball when you have hands placed on you, it's not like you're only affected by shoves.

[mogrovejo]

Any part of your post still standing?

[Cry Havoc]

Ladies, are you going to man up and take the sig bet or not?

You've been ridiculous in this entire thread. I really have no desire to participate in discourse with you, because you've shown a complete lack of the ability to be civilized or rational in your disagreement with other posters.


Let's break this down, since the debate is fairly ridiculous.

Mogro: whether or not all those were fouls makes little difference in the long run. If the refs were to call fouls 1, 3, and 4 in each game per the rulebook, the game would consist of nothing but each team shooting FT's, as others have mentioned. The refs obviously allow some physicality, especially in the playoffs.

Since you're acting like the rulebook is some mystical holy book, I'll just post the whole relevant section next.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList

B. Personal Foul

Section I--Types



Per this rule, number 5 would seem to be a foul, as Dirk's progress is impeded. However, in 1-4, it's arguable that contact results in the "rerouting" of Dirk. Neither is it plain as day that the hand-checking "impeded" Dirk's progress. To argue that it is obvious is asinine.



Obviously, exceptions 1-4 don't apply as he was outside the paint completely. So we have to look at 5. Is MacDyess's contact with the hand of Dirk "incidental" in the fouls listed? I would argue yes, as it doesn't seem to affect his speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm.



Doesn't apply.



Doesn't apply.



Another important section. When McDyess is handchecking, is he deliberately trying to hand-check a part of the body that isn't Dirk's hand? From what I see, it looks like he's trying to check Dirk's hands, which is a legal target since it's in contact with the ball. There's room to argue, of course, if that's incidental contact or not.

But to argue that it's clearcut is somewhat silly, in my eyes. People are human; there's going to be some contact with other parts of the body, especially if the man on offense swings his arms. The refs are looking, for the most part, for obvious violations of the rule. People breaking the "spirit" of the law, as it were, rather than robotically whistling whenever a defender's hand graces a body part other than the offensive player's hand outside the box.

LnG bringing the goods. And of course by the time I post this, most likely mogro will have retorted by stating that you're wrong and he's right. Bonus points if he cites strawmen or calls you names.

[mogrovejo]

1. Players don't need to deliberately trying to hand-check parts of the body that aren't hands to be called for fouls. Dice and Parker could have been trying to check only ball; it's irrelevant. Referees can't read minds.

2. The degree/type of contact allowed differs depending on where a player is on the floor (Hi Cry Havoc and Warlord).

[Shastafarian]

Cry Havoc and Warlord, I have to leave, but I'm still expecting you sorry sissies to tell us if you accept the sig bet or not.

[mogrovejo]

You've been ridiculous in this entire thread. I really have no desire to participate in discourse with you, because you've shown a complete lack of the ability to be civilized or rational in your disagreement with other posters.

I see, you're trying to not answer my question at all costs.

Are you now aware that, yes, where the player is positioned on the floor matters when it comes to call personal fouls? Have you learned this at least?

Or are you too insecure to admit you weren't aware of the rules?

[Cry Havoc]

1. Players don't need to deliberately trying to hand-check parts of the body that aren't hands to be called for fouls.

:wow What a sentence. My brain hurts.


2. The degree/type of contact allowed differs depending on where a player is on the floor (Hi Cry Havoc and Warlord).

And you accuse other people of strawmen? Will you please show me where I stated anything regarding this in the thread?

[LnGrrrR]

Players don't need to deliberately trying to hand-check parts of the body that aren't hands to be called for fouls.

Of course not. But to assume that the refs WILL call those fouls each time they occur is silly. As stated above, going by the rulebook, there's a good possibility that fouls occur on nearly half of every NBA play. (Yes, I'm pulling this out of my ass from personal experience/watching.)

Whether it's a foul by the book or not is a secondary argument to whether or not those fouls should be called, as I see it. Are you arguing that the foul should be called every time?



Really? That's bizarre. Dirk even needs to pick his dribble because of the contact. It's a lot tougher to play basketball when you have hands placed on you, it's not like you're only affected by shoves.


I'm not sure what you mean by "pick his dribble". Do you mean pick up his dribble? If McDyess is trying to play Dirk's hand on the ball, then it's a legal target.

The rules state nothing about it being illegal to force someone to pick up his dribble. It says "speed, quickness, balance or rhythm". Does having to pick up a dribble stop his speed in the aforementioned instance? No, because Dirk is standing still. Quickness? Arguable, but I'd say no. Balance? He isn't falling down. Rhythm? No.

Per your reading of the rules, whenever a defender brushed his hand against any part of an offensive player outside the box, except the hand in contact with the ball, that would be a foul. Correct?

[Shastafarian]

He's basically saying it doesn't matter if Dice was attempting to contact only Dirk's hands (as to make it a legal play) because the refs can only make calls on what they see. And they see Dice making contact with other parts of Dirk's body. What he fails to realize is none of us really care. 3-1 and we're all just wondering if he knows how to remove that large stick from his ass.

[Cry Havoc]

Per your reading of the rules, whenever a defender brushed his hand against any part of an offensive player outside the box, except the hand in contact with the ball, that would be a foul. Correct?


Me, on Page 3 of this thread: You say nothing about a hand-check here. It's obvious you were referencing the fact that you think (thought) touching Dirk = a foul. Self-owned. :lol

:tu Looks like mog's position on this is fairly easy to understand. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

1. Players don't need to deliberately trying to hand-check parts of the body that aren't hands to be called for fouls. Dice and Parker could have been trying to check only ball; it's irrelevant. Referees can't read minds.
.

And what you're obviously not understanding is that the refs allow leeway within the spirit of the rules. If said incidental contact is unintentional, then refs more often than not let it go without a whistle.

Yes, players can be called for fouls by unintentionally interrupting another person. This is obvious.

But to make the logical leap that because refs whistle that SOMETIMES, that it automatically means the refs will/should whistle it all the time.

It may be a foul per the rulebook, but it is not considered by the majority of fans to be a foul that is actually CALLED, or that should be. Do you understand the distinction?

The people on this board aren't arguing whether it's a foul by the letter of the law, but whether it should be whistled, and whether that whistle would seem to go along with other whistles made this series.

Sheesh.

[Cry Havoc]

Sheesh.

As I said, epic thread potential. This is extremely analogous to the "CROFL Tony Parker Haters" thread in the Spurs forum. :lmao

[mogrovejo]

He's basically saying it doesn't matter if Dice was attempting to contact only Dirk's hands (as to make it a legal play) because the refs can only make calls on what they see. And they see Dice making contact with other parts of Dirk's body.


Exactly. However, some are too limited to understand that.

[ElNono]

Wait, are you now saying I actually quoted the rules?

I already answered this question too...

[Cry Havoc]

Exactly. However, some are too limited to understand that.

:lmao

[mogrovejo]

And what you're obviously not understanding is that the refs allow leeway within the spirit of the rules. If said incidental contact is unintentional, then refs more often than not let it go without a whistle.

Yes, players can be called for fouls by unintentionally interrupting another person. This is obvious.

But to make the logical leap that because refs whistle that SOMETIMES, that it automatically means the refs will/should whistle it all the time.

It may be a foul per the rulebook, but it is not considered by the majority of fans to be a foul that is actually CALLED, or that should be. Do you understand the distinction?

The people on this board aren't arguing whether it's a foul by the letter of the law, but whether it should be whistled, and whether that whistle would seem to go along with other whistles made this series.

Yes, and the majority of them believe it should have been whistled.

I was only saying that your argument about what McDyess was or wasn't trying to do, to check Dirk's hand or whatever, is MEANINGLESS. 100% irrelevant. That's all.

[mogrovejo]

If McDyess is trying to play Dirk's hand on the ball, then it's a legal target.

Once again, do you understand that what McDyess is trying to do is irrelevant? How the heck do you or the refs know what he was trying to do? What matters is if he hit Dirk's on-the-ball hand or not.



The rules state nothing about it being illegal to force someone to pick up his dribble.

So?




It says "speed, quickness, balance or rhythm". Does having to pick up a dribble stop his speed in the aforementioned instance? No, because Dirk is standing still. Quickness? Arguable, but I'd say no. Balance? He isn't falling down. Rhythm? No.

Why the heck do you think Dirk picked up his dribble? And Dirk is standing still? Can't you seem he's progressing? Balance, he isn't falling down? Are you saying you have to knock down someone to the floor to be called for a foul? Rhythm, no? Are you serious?


Per your reading of the rules, whenever a defender brushed his hand against any part of an offensive player outside the box, except the hand in contact with the ball, that would be a foul. Correct?

No. Last time I answer this question. You can keep using this strawman argument forever and saying what I'm saying is that any hand placed on an opponents body is automatically a foul - I've refuted that times enough.

[LnGrrrR]

o. Last time I answer this question. You can keep using this strawman argument forever and saying what I'm saying is that any hand placed on an opponents body is automatically a foul - I've refuted that times enough.


So what part of an offensive player can a defensive player put his hand on, outside the paint?



Exactly. However, some are too limited to understand that.


And what you're too limited to understand is that the refs in many cases SEE those fouls being committed, and yet DON'T whistle them. Why do you think that is?



Why the heck do you think Dirk picked up his dribble? And Dirk is standing still? Can't you seem he's progressing? Balance, he isn't falling down? Are you saying you have to knock down someone to the floor to be called for a foul? Rhythm, no? Are you serious?


Given this reading of the rules, then as soon as a defensive player brushes his hand anywhere on an offensive player, the offensive player should act as if his dribble is screwed up, drawing a foul. That would really make the NBA fun to watch! :tu

[ElNono]

And what you're obviously not understanding is that the refs allow leeway within the spirit of the rules. If said incidental contact is unintentional, then refs more often than not let it go without a whistle.

Yes, players can be called for fouls by unintentionally interrupting another person. This is obvious.

But to make the logical leap that because refs whistle that SOMETIMES, that it automatically means the refs will/should whistle it all the time.

It may be a foul per the rulebook, but it is not considered by the majority of fans to be a foul that is actually CALLED, or that should be. Do you understand the distinction?

The people on this board aren't arguing whether it's a foul by the letter of the law, but whether it should be whistled, and whether that whistle would seem to go along with other whistles made this series.

Sheesh.

Please list the rule xx, article yy where common sense is spelled in the rule book.
Thanks.

[Sisk]

If that's 5 fouls, then Damp and Haywood literally foul out every time they guard Duncan.

My thoughts exactly. Timmy is getting hugged down there without any respect, so no these aren't fouls.

If anything "foul #3" is on dirk

[ElNono]

Why the heck do you think Dirk picked up his dribble? And Dirk is standing still? Can't you seem he's progressing? Balance, he isn't falling down? Are you saying you have to knock down someone to the floor to be called for a foul? Rhythm, no? Are you serious?

This could just as easily describe Dirk running into somebody and getting called for an offensive foul...

[LnGrrrR]

Please list the rule xx, article yy where common sense is spelled in the rule book.
Thanks.

:lol

[Ghazi]

Mogro cracking skulls up in here :tu

[LnGrrrR]

Mogro smoking crack up in here :tu

Fify

[mogrovejo]

So what part of an offensive player can a defensive player put his hand on, outside the paint?

You just quoted the rule a few posts ago.


And what you're too limited to understand is that the refs in many cases SEE those fouls being committed, and yet DON'T whistle them. Why do you think that is?

Disagree. I think when referees see fouls, they whistle them in a large majority of the cases.


Given this reading of the rules, then as soon as a defensive player brushes his hand anywhere on an offensive player, the offensive player should act as if his dribble is screwed up, drawing a foul. That would really make the NBA fun to watch! :tu

Why? It seems you believe that you either knock down a guy to the floor or isn't a foul.

It doesn't work that way.

In any case, it's extremely dangerous to put your hands on a player dribbling the ball on the perimeter in the NBA - precisely because of that. Heck, someone posted an article with Doc and Popovich saying exactly that.

[mogrovejo]

And what you're too limited to understand is that the refs in many cases SEE those fouls being committed, and yet DON'T whistle them. Why do you think that is?

Btw, my too limited to understand comment was about this:


He's basically saying it doesn't matter if Dice was attempting to contact only Dirk's hands (as to make it a legal play) because the refs can only make calls on what they see.

That renders all your endless rants about what Dice was trying or not trying to hit moot.

[LnGrrrR]

Why? It seems you believe that you either knock down a guy to the floor or isn't a foul.

I would argue that it would have to affect a player already in progress/motion, or cause him to lose his balance in a noticeable way. In the above video, his progress is impeded in 5, but it's not visible in 1, 3 and 4, because he doesn't continue dribbling/moving. When he DOES so, then the foul is much more clear.


You just quoted the rule a few posts ago.

And the rules say that the defensive player is only allowed to put his hand on the hand in contact with the ball, correct?

The rules also say that incidental contact with other parts of the body should not be called if it doesn't affect the quickness/speed/balance/rhythm, which is obviously not black and white.

[mogrovejo]

I would argue that it would have to affect a player already in progress/motion, or cause him to lose his balance in a noticeable way.

Have you been watching games? Noticeable to whom? To me, it's pretty evident that Dirk's progression is affected. He doesn't have to fall to the floor or lose control of the ball.

And no, players don't have to be already in motion. That's another silly thing to say.

For example, did Parker foul in that play?

[z0sa]

And what you're too limited to understand is that the refs in many cases SEE those fouls being committed, and yet DON'T whistle them. Why do you think that is?

This is the question I asked him some time ago.

Why didn't the refs call them if they are so, so obvious?

Obvious fouls get called. The video has no obvious fouls. Those "fouls" are definitely in the "ticky-tack" department, if still questionable no-calls.

[mogrovejo]

And the rules say that the defensive player is only allowed to put his hand on the hand in contact with the ball, correct?

Of course. And the defensive player can't stay inside the paint for more than 3 seconds without actively guarding someone. So?


The rules also say that incidental contact with other parts of the body should not be called if it doesn't affect the quickness/speed/balance/rhythm, which is obviously not black and white.

So? I mean, you can keep parroting the rules, but what's the point? I know them, I actually quoted them.

The point is if this particular play is a grey situation or a black/white one. And it's a black one. If you think this kind of contact is generally allowed in the NBA or that is only called half of the times it happens, than I don't know what to say to why.

[mogrovejo]

This is the question I asked him some time ago.

Why didn't the refs call them if they are so, so obvious?

Obvious fouls get called. The video has no obvious fouls. Those "fouls" are definitely in the "ticky-tack" department, if still questionable no-calls.

I've answered this in the first page.

To me that's an obvious foul that the refs screwed up by not calling. That kind of foul would even be called in Europe, let alone in the NBA.