Need opinion from the objective masses

[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.

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Ghazi]

Mogro cracking skulls up in here

[LnGrrrR]

Mogro smoking crack up in here

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!

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.