Need opinion from the objective masses

[Warlord23]

Looks like I missed a lot. 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 . 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. 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?

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 Can't wait to see this thread tomorrow morning

[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.

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 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...av=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...av=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?