-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
2015/16 NBA Season Thread
- Thread starter R2D2
- Start date
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Gotta admit this series has been much more competitive than anyone expected.
So people are really bitching that curry shouldn't have won unanimous mvp because Jordan and chamberlain didn't?
Seriously?
I'm already with one foot out the door on pro basketball. Shit like this will eventually push me out completely
Blame the voters why they weren't unanimous, not curry.
Seriously?
I'm already with one foot out the door on pro basketball. Shit like this will eventually push me out completely
Blame the voters why they weren't unanimous, not curry.
silverwheels
PLAY LA BAMBA BABY
Damn, I had to work. What did I miss?
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Thudner dominated on the glass (when Adams, Kanter, and RUSS are out there together, the Spurs just can't compete for rebounds), RUSS was a force of nature, Spurs didn't shoot 60%.
Last edited:
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Also, maybe I'm biased, but I have zero sympathy for people bitching that the intentional foul at the end of the game should have gone to Leonard before RUSS' shot instead of Aldridge in the act.
Bitching that a foul *wasn't* called on your team makes my eyes roll. Just play basketball, don't involve the refs in your gameplan. When you try to game the rules and things don't work out your way, I don't want to hear about it.
Bitching that a foul *wasn't* called on your team makes my eyes roll. Just play basketball, don't involve the refs in your gameplan. When you try to game the rules and things don't work out your way, I don't want to hear about it.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Of course it is. It's committing a violation of the rules in order to put your team at an advantage because the outcome of breaking the rules is better than the outcome of just playing ball.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
If people are going to complain about intentionally fouling mongs who can't make free throws then I don't see how this is any different.
It just sounds a little disingenuous when you call fouling to stop the clock, "gaming the rules" as if they found some exploit or something. I didn't even see the game, what happened anyway, they tried to foul to stop clock, it wasn't called and the time ran out?
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
I'm not upset, I think it's funny for people to complain that their own team should have been penalized, and that the fact that they weren't penalized tilts the game in their opponent's favor.
Either that's a warped way of looking at things or there is something wrong with the rules. That's why football lets people decline penalties.
Either that's a warped way of looking at things or there is something wrong with the rules. That's why football lets people decline penalties.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
It should never be advantageous to break the rules. I can't think of a comparable situation in football or hockey.
Football allows declining. Soccer has "playing the advantage." Hockey has penalty shots.
Basketball has "bitch at the refs."
Football allows declining. Soccer has "playing the advantage." Hockey has penalty shots.
Basketball has "bitch at the refs."
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
In football you can decline delay of game or pass interference if you're in a better position without the other team being penalized (e.g. if you catch the ball despite the PI).
In soccer, a professional foul nets a red card. Further, just like in football, if you're still in an advantageous position after the foul, the referee is supposed to allow you to play on.
That's exactly what happened here. Leonard fouled Westbrook, but the Thunder were in a more advantageous position without the foul call.
You're not *entitled* to be penalized in any other sport.
In soccer, a professional foul nets a red card. Further, just like in football, if you're still in an advantageous position after the foul, the referee is supposed to allow you to play on.
That's exactly what happened here. Leonard fouled Westbrook, but the Thunder were in a more advantageous position without the foul call.
You're not *entitled* to be penalized in any other sport.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Intentional fouls should net two shots and possession of the ball, and the definition of intentional foul should be broadened to include fouls like Leonard's, which I'm assuming 100% of us agree was intentional and not a good faith play on the ball.
As the resident middle school basketball referee, the thought behind this is to call it early if it's obvious they are trying to foul. The longer you wait to call it, the more egregious the fouling becomes so that you call it which may lead to more problems especially if there is bad blood between the two players.
I'm late game, close situations, I always ask the coach are they going to foul. They usually say they are going to play for a steal but if they are unsuccessful, then they will foul because unlike the NBA, if you foul a player in high school that doesn't have the ball, it's an intentional foul. Two shots and the ball.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
NML
Well-Known Member
In college football, PI use to be 15 yards (it may have changed), which is way better than letting him catch the pass. But clipping the receiver's ankles so he can't catch it and waltz into the end zone is a good reason to "break the rules."
A good professional foul in soccer is just a foul, maybe a yellow. I'm not talking about a last man tackle - but, fwiw, FIFA just changed the rules so you don't get the "triple punishment" any more.
In baseball you have the intentional walk so you don't have to face a great batter.
A good professional foul in soccer is just a foul, maybe a yellow. I'm not talking about a last man tackle - but, fwiw, FIFA just changed the rules so you don't get the "triple punishment" any more.
In baseball you have the intentional walk so you don't have to face a great batter.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Again, though, you're talking about situations in which the team being fouled is put at a LESS advantageous possession by the foul, but that's the opposite of this situation.
In this situation, the fouled team was in a MORE advantageous position without the foul call. Other sports have safety valves to keep teams from doing that. Football has the ability to decline penalties. Soccer has "play on." Hockey has delayed penalties that don't get whistled until the team loses possession of the puck.
Only basketball incorporates breaking the rules as a legitimate strategy and doesn't give the fouled team the ability to play the advantage, and that's why basketball games turn into shitshows down the stretch nearly every night.
It's a flaw in the rules.
In this situation, the fouled team was in a MORE advantageous position without the foul call. Other sports have safety valves to keep teams from doing that. Football has the ability to decline penalties. Soccer has "play on." Hockey has delayed penalties that don't get whistled until the team loses possession of the puck.
Only basketball incorporates breaking the rules as a legitimate strategy and doesn't give the fouled team the ability to play the advantage, and that's why basketball games turn into shitshows down the stretch nearly every night.
It's a flaw in the rules.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
To put it another way, have you ever heard football/soccer/hockey fans bitch that they got cheated by a non-call on their own team? I never have.
Because that's dumb and warped. The rules should not reward teams for breaking them.
Because that's dumb and warped. The rules should not reward teams for breaking them.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
And in every one of them the rules give the referees or the opposing team the opportunity to get around that violation, either by declining the penalty or continuing to play in spite of it.
NML
Well-Known Member
wat are you talking about?
If Larry Fitz is running past a CB and about to catch the ball and walk into the end zone, and he dives and grab his ankle so he falls - and now they get the ball at the 15 instead of the end zone, how do the Cardinals "get around" that?
If De Jong slides in and snaps a CM's leg who is leading a 3v2 counter and then he clears the ball long, what can the attacking team do other than ask for a red?
If Larry Fitz is running past a CB and about to catch the ball and walk into the end zone, and he dives and grab his ankle so he falls - and now they get the ball at the 15 instead of the end zone, how do the Cardinals "get around" that?
If De Jong slides in and snaps a CM's leg who is leading a 3v2 counter and then he clears the ball long, what can the attacking team do other than ask for a red?
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Again, you're making an apples to oranges comparison. Westbrook didn't trip and fall, he went to the basket and got a bucket.
So the appropriate analogy is:
Fitzgerald runs past a CB who tries to trip him. Fitz stumbles, recovers, catches the ball and scores a TD.
Now what happens? Are the Cardinals forced to take the PI even though they're better off without it?
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Thunder up 1, 9 seconds left.
Thunder inbound, Westbrook gets the ball. Leonard wraps an arm around Westbrook's waist, but the refs don't blow the whistle. RUSS goes to the rim and gets fouled by Aldridge while making a layup. So instead of shooting 2 up 1, RUSS is shooting 1 up 3.
People are bitching about the no-call on Leonard.
NML
Well-Known Member
No that's not what you said. You said
And I gave you a ton of examples of how it is.
And I gave you a ton of examples of how it is.
NML
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the refs missed the call. OKC win gets an asterisk
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
I don't consider fouling to be breaking the rules. Breaking the rules is cheating or trying to play with 6 men or something. Fouling, penalties and the remedies for the infractions are built into the game in all sports and employing a strategy to use the rules in your favor is not an exploit or gaming the system.
I haven't heard anyone complain, though. Popovich damn sure didn't.
I haven't heard anyone complain, though. Popovich damn sure didn't.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Pop never does. But I've seen multiple "Thunder win after blown call" headlines.
I disagree about fouls, but whatever. I didn't mean for it to be a two hour debate. I think the rule should be changed so that what Leonard did on that play is treated as an intentional foul and nets two shots and the ball.
Whether it's an exploit or not, the rules shouldn't incentivize fouling over playing ball, and it would be reel simple to fix it for good.
NML
Well-Known Member
Except in these situations
If you want to change the initial argument that's fine, but ur first point was stupid. You missed something in that comment to include that the team that gets fouled still scores/gets advantage/etc.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Again, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
The appropriate analogy is where Fitz is interfered with and still makes the play.
What happens in that scenario? Are the Cardinals forced to take the PI or can they decline and keep the TD?
The appropriate analogy is where Fitz is interfered with and still makes the play.
What happens in that scenario? Are the Cardinals forced to take the PI or can they decline and keep the TD?
NML
Well-Known Member
lol no it's not.
It may be to what happened with Westbrook, but not with ur dum dum comment.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
If you interpreted my comment to mean that I can't imagine a scenario where it would be better to cheat than not to, then you're not arguing in good faith in the first place.
Sure, Leonard could have taken out a gun and blown Westbrook's brains all over the front row. There isn't anything in the rule book that would balance that out in the Thunder's favor.
But I shouldn't have to account for that. Derp.
The point is that the rules currently incentivize breaking them. Other sports have safety valves to prevent that. Basketball doesn't. It should.
Sure, Leonard could have taken out a gun and blown Westbrook's brains all over the front row. There isn't anything in the rule book that would balance that out in the Thunder's favor.
But I shouldn't have to account for that. Derp.
The point is that the rules currently incentivize breaking them. Other sports have safety valves to prevent that. Basketball doesn't. It should.
NML
Well-Known Member
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
Because someone who wasn't just trying to argue over nothing would understand that I was discussing it in this context: where the team who gets cheated would be in a more advantageous position without the call than with it.
OBVIOUSLY one can imagine a situation where doing something like willfully injuring another player can't be adequately remedied in the rules.
That should go without saying.
OBVIOUSLY one can imagine a situation where doing something like willfully injuring another player can't be adequately remedied in the rules.
That should go without saying.
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
I don't know what that means.
It should be plainly obvious that there are some behaviors that the rules can't remedy. In other words, it goes without saying that we can gin up ways in which it is indeed advantageous to break the rules and nothing can fix it.
That's not the case in the situations we're discussing, where a team puts itself in an advantageous position *vs. the position they'd be in were the foul not called at all.*
It should be plainly obvious that there are some behaviors that the rules can't remedy. In other words, it goes without saying that we can gin up ways in which it is indeed advantageous to break the rules and nothing can fix it.
That's not the case in the situations we're discussing, where a team puts itself in an advantageous position *vs. the position they'd be in were the foul not called at all.*
GuyIncognito
pressure cooker full of skittles
If you think I only support treating Leonard's foul as an intentional foul because I'm a Thudner fan, I don't know what to tell you.