Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3660810

    This time, refs let Shaq be Shaq
    Story Tools: Print Email XML

    Charley Rosen / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 10 hours ago




    Every game, whether it's a neck-and-neck race to the finish line or a total blowout right out of the gate, always features a handful of critical sequences that are scattered throughout. The Heat's 88-76 trampling of the Pistons in Game 5 was no different. The only unique aspect here was that the game's most crucial play occurred within fifteen seconds of the tip-off.
    FOX Bite
    Videos

    No Wade, no problem
    Miami wins Game 5 against Detroit 88-76 despite losing Dwyane Wade to injury. Coach Stan van Gundy, Wade and Damon Jones discuss losing the star guard and how the rest of the team picked up their game.

    There was Shaq, parked in his usual spot on the left block and receiving an entry pass from Eddie Jones. As soon as he clutched the ball, Shaq blatantly straightened up Ben Wallace with a massive forearm shiver. Then Shaq spun baseline and blasted Wallace with a hip and a shoulder with sufficient force to send Big Ben reeling. The resulting dunk was therefore unopposed.


    Kahn: Too much Shaq
  • Rosen: Why Heat won Photos ...
    Thursday's playoff action


    Courtside celebs




    Analysis...


    Kahn: 10 things about final four
    Rosen: Eastern final preview
    Rosen: It's mailbag time
    Kalb: Top 10 surprising heroes
  • Deveney: Playoff predictions Also...


    Schedule | Scoreboard | Photos
    More NBA coverage | Video



  • Meanwhile, the refs merely sucked on their whistles.

    Why was this play so important? Only because the refs had made a passive spectator of Shaq with a series of awful calls in Game 4. (See Referees Shortchange Shaq.) The message Thursday night in Miami was that the league had reviewed the video of Game 4, admitted that Shaq had been unfairly penalized for doing what he's always done and that several make-up calls (and non-calls) were in order.

    And Shaq took full advantage of his license to batter B. Wallace in the paint. It was, indeed, Shaq's early dominance that allowed the Heat to grab control of the game.

    The second key play happened at 4:49 of the first quarter when Dwyane Wade committed his second personal foul in trying to defend Tayshaun Prince in the low-post. Having Prince go at Wade was a major piece of Detroit's game plan. And it seemed to be successful when Wade was subsequently forced to the bench.

    Just about 110 seconds later, Shaq also collected his second foul—a belated reach into B. Wallace's kitchen that even sympathetic refs couldn't ignore. And, like Wade, Shaq was temporarily banished to the pines.

    With Miami's two superstars temporarily out of action, the home team was extremely vulnerable — and the Pistons seemed to be poised to snatch the lead. But Damon Jones' hot-shooting paired with some energetic play by Alonzo Mourning maintained the Heat's edge.

    Here's another significant play: At 6:46 of the second quarter, Rasheed Wallace drove to the hoop and collided with Wade. To a disinterested onlooker, it appeared that Wade had not established the proper position and was clearly guilty of a blocking foul. Steve Javie immediately tooted his tooter, but made no indication of what his call would be. Would it be a block? Or a charge? Javie hesitated for another beat, no doubt reminding himself that Wade already was burdened with two fouls, that the game was being played in Miami and that a Heat-Spurs final would the most popular matchup … or perhaps Javie was just rerunning the sequence in his mind's eye. In any case, he chose to hang the foul on Rasheed.

    It should be noted that because R. Wallace usually throws a tantrum whenever a call goes against him, the league's refs do not view him in a good light. Hey, the guy always shows them up. Right? So it's easy for them to chump Rasheed.

    If R. Wallace succeeded in containing his displeasure, Larry Brown yelled, stomped and freaked out enough to warrant an ensuing technical. And guess what? Before the game was over, Rasheed would be called for two more charging fouls and hit with a tech of his own.

    For all intents and purposes, the game was done and won by Miami. But in the third quarter, the Heat made Stan Van Gundy sweat.

    First came a four-point play when Eddie Jones missed a point-blank shot and Prince ran himself into a dunker on the resulting fast break. Next up was a forced shot by Keyon Dooling that also sent the Pistons off and running—this time Detroit's payoff was a bucket, plus one, by Rip Hamilton. The swift turnaround narrowed Miami's lead but another cascade of jumpers by Damon and Eddie Jones restored the Heat's sizeable lead.

    With the game just about in Miami's pocket, Wade was involved in a series of plays that will certainly impact Game 6 and perhaps beyond.

    Again, Prince posted and re-posted Wade, aiming to further cripple the youngster with more foul trouble, or at least force the Heat to send help and thereby create open spaces for Chauncey Billups and Hamilton. But Wade managed to strip Prince and come away with the ball. Next time down, Wade leaped high to tip away the entry pass and Udonis Haslem came up with the interception.

    Clearly, Prince in the pivot against Wade no longer constitutes the lopsided edge that the Pistons were planning to exploit.

    We all know what happened at 2:39 of the third quarter: Wade was off-balance in a battle for a rebound and suffered a rib injury. He was quickly hustled off to the locker room. (He returned for a few painful minutes in the fourth quarter before taking himself out for good.) But Eddie Jones and Rasual Butler took up the slack and the Heat continued to sizzle.

    Here's your chance to fire back at Charley Rosen. Got a question or a comment? Submit it below and Charley will respond to the best ones in regular mailbag features.
    Subject:

    Comment/Question:

    Name: (ex, john doe)
    Email: (ex, a@b.c)
    Hometown:



    How bad is Wade's injury? Will he play in Game 6? And if he does play, how much will his movements be hindered?

    Right now there are more questions than there are answers.

    And, finally, as a comic sequel to the refs' all-important non-call on Shag to start the game, at 4:59 of the fourth quarter, the Big Load was called for a phantom charging foul. It was another ridiculous decision—a statement call to demonstrate the refs' impartiality. And, besides, it was too late in the game for the call to have the slightest influence on the outcome.

    But, hey, guys! Refs are certainly allowed to make bad calls—just as long as their calls are consistent. This is always a charge. That is always a block. And so on. Good, bad, or indifferent, the players will adjust and play according to the rules-of-the-moment. But something is amiss when both teams (as well as unbiased observers) have no idea what the call will be every time the whistle blows.

    It remains to be seen then for whom the whistle blows in Game 6.

    Charley Rosen, former CBA coach, author of 12 books about hoops, the current one being A pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA, is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.


  • #2
    Re: Charley Rosen calles out biased NBA officiating

    Here's another significant play: At 6:46 of the second quarter, Rasheed Wallace drove to the hoop and collided with Wade. To a disinterested onlooker, it appeared that Wade had not established the proper position and was clearly guilty of a blocking foul. Steve Javie immediately tooted his tooter, but made no indication of what his call would be. Would it be a block? Or a charge? Javie hesitated for another beat, no doubt reminding himself that Wade already was burdened with two fouls, that the game was being played in Miami and that a Heat-Spurs final would the most popular matchup … or perhaps Javie was just rerunning the sequence in his mind's eye. In any case, he chose to hang the foul on Rasheed.
    I admitt I didn't see a whole lot of last nights game, but I didn't see this play. I just don't see how anyone could really argue that play. To me it looked like Sheed knew he had the size advantage and got too excited. He lead with his elbow and nailed Wade in the upper chest and neck area, and it doesn't matter if he had position on a play like that.

    With that said, I'm even one that gives big men the benefit of the doubt when they post up smaller players. I'm not in favor of taking pity on someone because their smaller and weaker. My philosophy on that is, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.......
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Charley Rosen calles out biased NBA officiating

      Originally posted by Since86
      I admitt I didn't see a whole lot of last nights game, but I didn't see this play. I just don't see how anyone could really argue that play. To me it looked like Sheed knew he had the size advantage and got too excited. He lead with his elbow and nailed Wade in the upper chest and neck area, and it doesn't matter if he had position on a play like that.

      With that said, I'm even one that gives big men the benefit of the doubt when they post up smaller players. I'm not in favor of taking pity on someone because their smaller and weaker. My philosophy on that is, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.......
      You're thinking of a different play. The one you're describing was against Eddie Jones, and yes, that was a charge on Rasheed.

      But the play Rosen is describing was ridiculous. You could tell they knew Wade had two fouls and didn't want to give him a third. The Pistons probably wouldn't have won anyway, but it still doesn't make it right.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Charley Rosen calles out biased NBA officiating

        Originally posted by shags
        You're thinking of a different play. The one you're describing was against Eddie Jones, and yes, that was a charge on Rasheed.

        I'm talking about the one where Wade switched down on him, and then after the foul him just laid there.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

          I take a different stance on post-up situations.

          I'm sick and tired of seeing a larger player with his back to the basket turn and jump toward the basket for a shot right through or over a smaller player. If the smaller player is set, he is entitled to his position, and the larger player who goes through or over him to knock him off of that position should be called for a charge.

          IMO, that call is much easier to make for an official than trying to decide whether a defender had properly established position on a player driving to the basket. Yet, I'd bet the call (or non-call) is blown at least 4-5 times a game.

          If the officials were to make that call consistently, there would be a lot fewer arguments about calls. And, for teams like Detroit, or even the Pacers in their Finals appearance, there would be a lot more success in guarding Shaq, who has been successfully going through and over defending players with established position for his entire career.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

            Originally posted by beast23
            I take a different stance on post-up situations.

            I'm sick and tired of seeing a larger player with his back to the basket turn and jump toward the basket for a shot right through or over a smaller player. If the smaller player is set, he is entitled to his position, and the larger player who goes through or over him to knock him off of that position should be called for a charge.
            The difference is that if a big man flops, it's a no call. A guard flops against a big man, and it's as close to an automatic whistle as possible.

            When a post player starts backing down a guard, of course he's going to bump him and move him out of the way. I just hate the fact that a post player is supposed to tread lightly because he has a size advantage.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Charley Rosen calles out biased NBA officiating

              Originally posted by Since86
              I'm talking about the one where Wade switched down on him, and then after the foul him just laid there.
              That's the one I'm talking about. The Heat player was Eddie Jones. And it was the correct call. Rosen's talking about a different play.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                  Conspiracy conshmiracy.... how can anyone question the integrity of the game like that.

                  I love comments like that... if you think there is manipulation (at any level) of the officiating...then your dismissed as crazy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                    Originally posted by waxman
                    Conspiracy conshmiracy.... how can anyone question the integrity of the game like that.

                    I love comments like that... if you think there is manipulation (at any level) of the officiating...then your dismissed as crazy.
                    I've seen many, many examples of evidence to support the theory of corruption and manipulation, either on a conscious or unconscious level. IMO, to completely dismiss the possiblity is, in fact, crazy...or at the very least, incredibly naive.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                      Originally posted by Shade
                      I've seen many, many examples of evidence to support the theory of corruption and manipulation, either on a conscious or unconscious level. IMO, to completely dismiss the possiblity is, in fact, crazy...or at the very least, incredibly naive.

                      Agree 100%

                      where's the NBA's "Deep Throat" when you need 'em?

                      Or was that Van Gundy's source...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                        kinda reminds me of the spurs vs lakers? I think it was.
                        They were trying to hack a shaq at the end and the refs wouldn't blow the whistle. They ended up turning the ball over but I think it was duncan was looking right at the ref hammering away on shaq and they didn't call anything.
                        HMMMMMMM
                        "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                          Steve Javie immediately tooted his tooter, but made no indication of what his call would be. Would it be a block? Or a charge? Javie hesitated for another beat, no doubt reminding himself that Wade already was burdened with two fouls, that the game was being played in Miami and that a Heat-Spurs final would the most popular matchup …
                          This would be funny if it wasn't true. Hell, it's still funny. It made me chuckle at least.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            The difference is that if a big man flops, it's a no call. A guard flops against a big man, and it's as close to an automatic whistle as possible.

                            When a post player starts backing down a guard, of course he's going to bump him and move him out of the way. I just hate the fact that a post player is supposed to tread lightly because he has a size advantage.
                            So if the guy is bigger he should be able to use his bulk to knock the defender out of his spot, even if the defender established the position? That is called being an offensive/defensive lineman, not a basketball player. Now I have no troupble with the bigger player using his height advantage to score, but that does require a little more skill.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Charley Rosen calls out biased NBA officiating

                              Originally posted by SycamoreKen
                              So if the guy is bigger he should be able to use his bulk to knock the defender out of his spot, even if the defender established the position? That is called being an offensive/defensive lineman, not a basketball player. Now I have no troupble with the bigger player using his height advantage to score, but that does require a little more skill.

                              So he isn't allowed to use weight/muscle mass, but height is okay? Last time I played, there was a lot of contact even out on the wings.

                              I'm not saying just flat out bumping the defender, but yes he should be able to bump. That's why I said "flop."
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X