Need opinion from the objective masses

[ElNono]

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...

[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

[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

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 led "hand-checking" with a definition of what "hand-checking" is, or an "incidental contact" rule.

[ElNono]

No. Let me repeat my questions:


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 led "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.

[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]

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
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?