or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread - Page 1032

post #15466 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

It's weird though, isn't this the definition of a foul though? I'm curious what event this rule can be enforced unless this rule is specifically added after the replays were implemented?

I hadn't thought about that, but what about:

Marginal/Incidental Contact:
While some contact may occur during a game, it does not mean a foul has been committed. Contact which is incidental to an effort by a player to play an opponent or to perform normal defensive or offensive movements should not be considered illegal. Players are allowed normal body contact with opponents when reaching for a loose ball if they both have the same opportunity to get the ball. This type of play shall be ruled incidental if neither illegally gains an advantage. The hand is considered “Part of the ball” when it is in contact with the ball. It is not a foul if a defensive player makes normal contact with a players hand when it is in contact with the ball.


*I cut-and-pasted that from nba.com. You'd think that with the kajillions of dollars the NBA makes they could hire someone to proofread their website . . .
post #15467 of 27247
In other news, I thought it an interesting point that Ms. Sperling brought up about how people are assuming that she should or be forced to sell her half of the team, but if it were the other way around (an owner's wife who had 50% stake in the operation who said the derogatory comments) there may not be the same assumption.
post #15468 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius View Post

In other news, I thought it an interesting point that Ms. Sperling brought up about how people are assuming that she should or be forced to sell her half of the team, but if it were the other way around (an owner's wife who had 50% stake in the operation who said the derogatory comments) there may not be the same assumption.

If by "interesting" you mean vacuous and predictable, then I agree.
post #15469 of 27247
Thread Starter 
That seems ambiguous too, I mean how do you define normal contact? If a defender jumps straight up against a guy driving the ball but doesn't touch the guys arm it's no foul but in that situation if the defender somehow touches the guys arm even if it is the offensive player that moves his arm to the defender a foul is called?

I mean most fouls outside of flagrants or intentional fouls to extend the game is incidental, isn't it? I mean most of the time you just want to defend and not really get a foul but it happens.

Also there are so many touch fouls in the game these days, I think that pertains more to the more rugged 80's and 90's basketball but not in today's game, right?
post #15470 of 27247
to me, "flagrant" is a word I'd use to define intentional fouling at the end of the game. It's one thing I don't get about basketball - cynical use of the rules is tolerated. Same thing with walking a player in baseball. Should come with harsher penalties.
post #15471 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

If by "interesting" you mean vacuous and predictable, then I agree.

I didn't even know she was part owner. I jumped on the whole energy of the moment, and then assumed some cool trifecta would purchase the team. Now I am legitimately interested in what could happen and what will happen. I hope that helps you understand my naiveté.
post #15472 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

That seems ambiguous too, I mean how do you define normal contact? If a defender jumps straight up against a guy driving the ball but doesn't touch the guys arm it's no foul but in that situation if the defender somehow touches the guys arm even if it is the offensive player that moves his arm to the defender a foul is called?

I mean most fouls outside of flagrants or intentional fouls to extend the game is incidental, isn't it? I mean most of the time you just want to defend and not really get a foul but it happens.

Also there are so many touch fouls in the game these days, I think that pertains more to the more rugged 80's and 90's basketball but not in today's game, right?

I agree it's ambiguous, but that's the NBA's language. A certain amount of ambiguity is unavoidable, I'd think. You can't write a rule (well, I couldn't, anyway) that would provide perfectly clear guidance in all circumstances. What I was really focused on, though, was the "Part of the ball" [sic] discussion. That seems pretty close to the Barnes/Jackson situation, and could partially answer your question about when the previously-mentioned rule might come into play. If the hand is part of the ball, hitting the other guy's hand is not a foul. But if your hitting his hand causes him to lose the ball out of bounds, the situation is covered by that first rule.
post #15473 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

to me, "flagrant" is a word I'd use to define intentional fouling at the end of the game. It's one thing I don't get about basketball - cynical use of the rules is tolerated. Same thing with walking a player in baseball. Should come with harsher penalties.

By "cynical use of the rules" do you mean anything other than "formulating your tactics to put your team in the best position in light of the rules of the game"? (I know it can be hard to tell online, but that's a serious question. Put differently, is it the teams' cynicism that bothers you, or the arguable hypocrisy of inconsistencies between the written rule and the practical rule as applied?)
Is there a sport -- especially a team sport -- where this doesn't happen? I'm not sure why you'd single out basketball (or basketball and baseball). Football teams use quick snap counts to try to catch the defense with 12 men on the field during substitutions. Hockey and soccer teams create offside traps. Each of these examples, one could argue, involves attempting to "take advantage" of a rule in a circumstance not necessarily involving the harm or unfair advantage the rule was designed to prevent.
Yes, you can change the rules if you want to eliminate specific behaviors like end-of-game intentional fouls. But you're never going to eliminate the cynical/strategic use of the rules, because that's a fundamental part of competitive sports.
post #15474 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

they also traded away demarre carroll.



sometimes tho i wonder if some of these busts are actually busts or they could've been a greater player in a better environment. like kawhi anywhere else other than the spurs might not have developed into the player he is today. or if the blazers had a better medical staff greg oden and brandon roy might not have gone the way they did
Demarre carroll would actually be fucking great on that team. spacing, decent d, low usage rate. can't really blame em for trading him away since nobody wanted him for years.

context matters so much...probably mostly at extremes tho. like there's probably not a giant diff btwn playing in brooklyn vs. minny...but if you get stuck in a horrible situation like sac or cle, or in an amazing one like the spurs, it makes a huge difference. kawhi def wouldn't be burgeoning star kawhi anywhere else. mayo was an average player in mem, then he is alright in dallas last year, then he goes to MIL, gets hurt and fat, and is freaking horrible.

roy would probably still have had a shortened career given he's always had knee issues, but maybe phoenix's ridiculous staff coulda helped oden along? who knows.
post #15475 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

By "cynical use of the rules" do you mean anything other than "formulating your tactics to put your team in the best position in light of the rules of the game"? (I know it can be hard to tell online, but that's a serious question. Put differently, is it the teams' cynicism that bothers you, or the arguable hypocrisy of inconsistencies between the written rule and the practical rule as applied?)
Is there a sport -- especially a team sport -- where this doesn't happen? I'm not sure why you'd single out basketball (or basketball and baseball). Football teams use quick snap counts to try to catch the defense with 12 men on the field during substitutions. Hockey and soccer teams create offside traps. Each of these examples, one could argue, involves attempting to "take advantage" of a rule in a circumstance not necessarily involving the harm or unfair advantage the rule was designed to prevent.
Yes, you can change the rules if you want to eliminate specific behaviors like end-of-game intentional fouls. But you're never going to eliminate the cynical/strategic use of the rules, because that's a fundamental part of competitive sports.

Yes, I do mean that.
It's the inconsistencies between the written rule and the practical rule that bothers me. The written rule is designed to ensure that one team is punished and another team is compensated for foul play; but there are points in the game where the punishment and compensation aren't equivalent to the offence; that, to me, is unfair. This only occurs in points of the game where the punishment for the crime is less bad or even a good thing for the team committing the crime. I would not call offside traps cynical use of the rules at all. Offside traps are pressing an advantage. They also come with their own dangers on the defensive end. You don't make a massive offside trap if you know that the offense is much faster than your defensive players. It doesn't eliminate the contest, in other words.

Plenty of sports make efforts to address this. In rugby, cynical offending is called a "professional foul". If a referee deems that a professional foul has occurred, that player will invariably be ejected from the game; and often a penalty try would be awarded if the referee decides that the intentional foul was made in effort to prevent a try being scored: in other words, it's no longer beneficial for that player to commit a tactical infringement.

There's another rule called an "intentional knock-on", where a defending player has grabbed at a pass with no intention of actually intercepting a ball, but purely to shut down an offensive move. Normally, when a player drops a ball, it is just possession that is given to the other team. However, in the case of an intentional knock-on, a full penalty may be awarded, and sometimes even a penalty try.

No rules are going to be able to completely get rid of tactical fouling, I agree. It also requires some degree of interpretation from referees, which can be a problem. There are always going to be rare cases where someone can figure something out. But it astounds me that it's so prevalent in basketball.
Edited by hendrix - 5/14/14 at 4:00pm
post #15476 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

Again, learn to read. The foul doesn't count because that part was missed and not reviewable. The replay shows Jackson touched the ball last so the Clips should get the ball, foul or not. The foul becomes irrelevant because it isn't called and nothing can be done about a missed call.
.

Not according to the rules. Convenient that you are ignoring that. The fact that the refs said "inconclusive" in the moment does not change the rules.

Also, you might have and I could well have missed it, but did you post how Curry was fouled by paul and the Dubs were robbed? (at the time, now obviously everyone is on board with that).
post #15477 of 27247
Thread Starter 
Well you did the whole whining for everyone here on Dubs behalf so I didn't need to pile on. Plus it wasn't reviewable so it couldn't be changed, the out of bounds was clear and should have been changed was replayed 10million times. Plus who am I going to argue with that non-call on Curry? It was obvious and who would disagree? lol8[1].gif People just ignored you and decided not to reply to you because all you did was whine the whole series.

It is impossible for 3 refs to call that inconclusive, that is just an excuse. It was very clear it was out on Jackson then they could have quoted that rule from the top of their heads if the refs are even aware of that because the same situations has happened the whole season and they never go the way it went last night, they always award it to the other team. I would know if that rule was brought up in the season before.


I am not conveniently ignoring it, I talked about it right there with lawyerdad and replied to it with Brothersport and as lawyerdad just posted, the rules could have been interpreted differently since it's too ambiguous but in the end, the same situation has happened over and over again and the ball went to the team that didn't touch the ball but in last night case, they went the other way and gifted it to OKC.



Again stop being such a damn sore loser, if that happened to the Spurs or any other team that didn't beat your Dubs then you wouldn't even give a shit. As much as you blame the Clips and post "wahhh" every time CP3 flops, you don't even realize you whine and bitch more than them.
post #15478 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

Yes, I do mean that.
It's the inconsistencies between the written rule and the practical rule that bothers me. The written rule is designed to ensure that one team is punished and another team is compensated for foul play; but there are points in the game where the punishment and compensation aren't equivalent to the offence; that, to me, is unfair. This only occurs in points of the game where the punishment for the crime is less bad or even a good thing for the team committing the crime. I would not call offside traps cynical use of the rules at all. Offside traps are pressing an advantage. They also come with their own dangers on the defensive end. You don't make a massive offside trap if you know that the offense is much faster than your defensive players. It doesn't eliminate the contest, in other words.

Plenty of sports make efforts to address this. In rugby, cynical offending is called a "professional foul". If a referee deems that a professional foul has occurred, that player will invariably be ejected from the game; and often a penalty try would be awarded if the referee decides that the intentional foul was made in effort to prevent a try being scored: in other words, it's no longer beneficial for that player to commit a tactical infringement.

There's another rule called an "intentional knock-on", where a defending player has grabbed at a pass with no intention of actually intercepting a ball, but purely to shut down an offensive move. Normally, when a player drops a ball, it is just possession that is given to the other team. However, in the case of an intentional knock-on, a full penalty may be awarded, and sometimes even a penalty try.

No rules are going to be able to completely get rid of tactical fouling, I agree. It also requires some degree of interpretation from referees, which can be a problem. There are always going to be rare cases where someone can figure something out. But it astounds me that it's so prevalent in basketball.

What does rugby have to do with anything? I was talking about real sports.
nest.gif
post #15479 of 27247
On the Draymond foul, CP3 was already in the midst of losing the ball. No foul.

I didn't watch last night's game, but I'm with Hendrix. If the refs miss a foul, and it goes out of bounds, the fouling team shouldn't be rewarded. Have the refs officiated that way before? NO. And there's a problem with that. But the NBA is awful at officiating and they really need to work on consistency this offseason. You guys were just talking past each other.

I hate the Clippers due to all the flopping. It's painful to watch. At least they don't have Jeremy Evans anymore. Jesus a gust of wind could blow that go over.

So, SVG to Detroit as coach and head of basketball ops? I thought he'd be a great fit on the Dubs. I guess he went with the situation that provided more power + lower expectations.
post #15480 of 27247
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

Not according to the rules. Convenient that you are ignoring that. The fact that the refs said "inconclusive" in the moment does not change the rules.

Also, you might have and I could well have missed it, but did you post how Curry was fouled by paul and the Dubs were robbed? (at the time, now obviously everyone is on board with that).

pretty sure he did
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread