Need opinion from the objective masses

[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?

[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?

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 re . 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.

[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 . 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 . 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 ing re , 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 ing 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/misunder...es_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.

Just refereeing this debate.

[z0sa]

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