Need opinion from the objective masses

[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 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.

[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?

[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 led '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 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 face.

[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 face.

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 led "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 about other teams fans when you sit here and post annoying like this makes me laugh so hard.

You really do think so highly of yourself yet I believe you've managed to annoy the 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
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

[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]

@ 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 you are.

It just makes this really funny:

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

[badfish22]

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

[mogrovejo]

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

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 y and brash way, then you better be ready to have your ass called out.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW Super , 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]

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.



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

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?