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

JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

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

  • JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

    Let the fun begin.



    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


    Celtics 114, Pacers 88
    Pacers get clobbered, fall to .500
    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com
    November 15, 2006


    BOSTON -- You can easily point to the Indiana Pacers' inability to rebound -- again -- as the reason they lost to the struggling Boston Celtics on Wednesday.
    That would be letting the Pacers off too easily, though.
    They let the Celtics' athletic, but inexperienced, point guards outhustle them. For a team of veterans, the Pacers were the ones looking like the team that's rebuilding as they came unraveled mentally and physically in the second half.

    The Pacers became Boston's second victim of the season when the Celtics outplayed them in the second half of their easy 114-88 victory at the TD Banknorth Garden.

    "Don't ever underestimate a desperate team, and they were desperate and they played their (expletive) off and they deserved to kick our (expletive)," coach Rick Carlisle said afterward.

    Frustration mounted after the game when forward Jermaine O'Neal, still in his uniform, went into the coaches' office down the hall from the locker room and had a heated conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. Voices could be heard in the hallway. O'Neal declined to comment on the incident, for which team president Larry Bird was also in the room.

    The Pacers, who have dropped two straight games, have said a number of times it's going to take time before they start looking like the team they want to be.

    It could take a lot longer than expected because they continue to make the same mistakes Carlisle is trying to correct.

    The Pacers (4-4) have yet to beat a team that had a winning record last season.

    "I don't know what it is," Pacers shooting guard Stephen Jackson said. "I can't really put my hand on it. Everybody knows we're a lot better than what we're showing. Everybody has different things on their mind. Some things have to change."

    One thing that could change is the Pacers' rotation, including the starting lineup. For the second time this season, Carlisle said he's going to look at possibly making a lineup change.

    "Right now we have 15 healthy players and we have a chance for some consistency," he said. "I'm going to look at the film and we may have to shuffle the deck. Maybe these pieces don't fit together.

    "I still think they can (get it together), but you have to bring commitment, you have to bring the unselfishness and you have to bring the passion, otherwise you are going to get your (expletive) kicked. That's how it works in this league."

    The Pacers haven't gotten the memo yet that says they have to rebound missed shots if they want to use their so far nonexistent uptempo offense.

    The Pacers followed up their rebounding debacle against Chicago on Saturday by letting the Celtics outrebound them 53-33.

    The Pacers reverted to some of their bad habits in the second half when the Celtics shot 60 percent from the field.

    Jackson was called for a technical for complaining about a play he thought was a foul. Carlisle promptly benched him. Point guard Jamaal Tinsley was whistled for a flagrant foul on Celtics forward Wally Szczerbiak following a Jackson turnover.

    "The disappointing thing was when things got tough, Boston was the tougher team," Carlisle said. "That is not the sign of the type of team we need to be successful."

    Paul Pierce led all scorers with 32 points on 11-of-19 shooting in 32 minutes. Al Harrington led the Pacers with 23 points.

  • #2
    Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

    pacers are going nowhere with jo as the 'franchise'. trade him to chicago for that nyk pick, thomas, and deng at all costs.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office



      This should be fun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

        We'll find out tomorrow what was said as MagicRat has every arena in the NBA bugged

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

          He probably wondered why a guy who inbounds the ball into the freaking backboard is getting any playing time at all.

          He also might have wondered why most of his blocks bounced away from guys like Foster (he missed 2 of them, one right off his leg and another he was slow to chase down) aren't getting recovered by his own teammates, especially when he saves the day on a 4 on 1 break.


          I gotta say that Al, Daniels and JO were by far the most impressive guys in terms of effort tonight.

          Here's the key point, JO went to the office, Ron went to Mike Wells.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
            He probably wondered why a guy who inbounds the ball into the freaking backboard is getting any playing time at all.

            I forgot all about that play - but that was a puzzler - If JO is wondering that, then JO and I think alike.

            I also wonder when Bird will let Rick bench Saras. You know he wants to. He might also want to go back to his "playoff style" especially if the defense and rebounding don't improve.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

              Rick did bench him (SarJas) and Jack tonight after each had stretches of bad ball. Now contrary to fans that think just missing shots is bad ball, RC only plants guys who have brain locks, are disgruntled, or lack the effort.

              Jack really let Paul get in his head early and just was not putting in the effort after the initial move by PP. A couple of PnRolls he left JO hanging by not switching hard and denying the return pass (like that Perkins layup).

              If you want to see me get on Jack, here is your chance, because just like he can play well with bad shooting he can also play bad with good shooting, and that was the case tonight.

              He did try and did keep his cool (that tech was complete BS unless he said something particularly nasty, he gave no indication of argument that you could see), but in the first especially he just looked like @ss. That got Rawle in, as Rick (and I) had seen enough.


              Sarunas then had an even worse sequence that didn't end with the stupid ball off the backboard, which frankly is just embarrassing. First he went to the lane off the PnR dribble (the play where the guard curls the low post screen and take the pass from up top) and proceeded to travel when he got caught going up and not shooting as Rondo came leaping by.

              Around this time the starters rejoined him so no excuse about who he has to play with. And he was the only PG on the floor (Jack, Daniels, Granger, JO). They ran the double elbow screen play (2 bigs come to the elbows, PG has choice) which he took for another shot and miss, but luckily JO's effort sandwiched between Perkins and Pierce got the ball knocked out baseline off Pierce.

              Then came that joke baseline in-bounds pass off the backboard, right out of a Jerry Lewis flick.

              Rondo then crossed him over badly and went straight to the lane. JO left Perkins to challenge the shot, Rondo passed to Perkins, JO recovers to defend Perkins shot too and forces a miss, which he rebounds himself.

              They ran a PnR with SarJas and JO that sent it back to JO at the elbow, he fakes and popped a nice jumper. Went the other way and Pierce matched it (Cabbages not part of that play).

              Then Sarunas brought it up one more time and sent it way out of bounds baseline on a PnR drive in which he was trying to pass back to JO. He just totally lost the handle and sent the ball sailing.

              He then grabbed his front shoulder (his left) which got run into by Perkins well after he lost the pass, almost in a cover-up for his crap play.

              At this point Rick yanked him. 3 TOs in less than 90 seconds of game play, plus getting beat badly off the Rondo dribble. And each TO was pretty ugly.



              Could be something totally different. Maybe JO didn't like Rick yanking Jack early (though it was deserved), maybe RC said something to him about his shooting, but I'd honestly be surprised if RC had been getting on JO while watching this game. JO was doing much better than everyone but Al and Daniels.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                Originally posted by Unclebuck







                Frustration mounted after the game when forward Jermaine O'Neal, still in his uniform, went into the coaches' office down the hall from the locker room and had a heated conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. Voices could be heard in the hallway. O'Neal declined to comment on the incident, for which team president Larry Bird was also in the room.

                The Pacers, who have dropped two straight games, have said a number of times it's going to take time before they start looking like the team they want to be.



                The Pacers (4-4) have yet to beat a team that had a winning record last season.



                One thing that could change is the Pacers' rotation, including the starting lineup. For the second time this season, Carlisle said he's going to look at possibly making a lineup change.

                "Right now we have 15 healthy players and we have a chance for some consistency," he said. "I'm going to look at the film and we may have to shuffle the deck. Maybe these pieces don't fit together.





                Jackson was called for a technical for complaining about a play he thought was a foul. Carlisle promptly benched him. Point guard Jamaal Tinsley was whistled for a flagrant foul on Celtics forward Wally Szczerbiak following a Jackson turnover.

                I don't know how to to the fancy multi-quote thing so bear with me.


                Since when do guys who've shot 28% averaged 3.3 T/O's and 9.7 points over the last three get to yell at their bosses?


                They said themselves it was going to take time before they started playing the way they want to...is eight games longer than they expected?


                I like how Wells threw in the "They haven't beat a team with a winning record yet" blurb . Last time I checked, we've played the Bobcats(26-56), Hornets(38-44), Knicks(23-59), 76ers(38-44), The Wiz(42-40), Magic(36-46), Bulls (41-41) and Celtics(33-49). While the statement is true, it's also true that I've never missed a game winning Super Bowl field goal.



                We've already heard Rick say he was gonna shuffle the lineup and he didn't. He also didn't mention anything about the starting lineup in his quote. I suppose it's possible he could tinker with the starters but from that quote I'd venture to say he gonna "shuffle the deck".


                Yes Jackson got a tech on a call he thought was bad. I thought it was a bad no call too. Yes he got benched for 8 minutes. Tinsley got a flagrant. He was not benched however. It seems like he is piling on these guys to me. Maybe not.


                Runi can't get a break, can he? Throwing the ball into the backboard?
                I'm in these bands
                The Humans
                Dr. Goldfoot
                The Bar Brawlers
                ME

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                    Well...

                    so much for my "there is something special" post.

                    I hope this was just some form of frustration about losing the game. I pray to God that the words "I need more touches" did not come out of his mouth.

                    I'll be honest with you, if he can't co-exist with Al then it's time for everybody & I mean everybody to step back & take a long look at this guy.

                    He couldn't co-exist with Jalen, he couldn't co-exist with Ron.

                    Al was his hand picked guy.

                    I am not saying that this is what was said, all I'm saying is that it better not be what was said.

                    Although once again I will now take the time to thank the Star for having an honest reporter who is not afraid to print this stuff.

                    Other reporters, no names mentioned, would have just not even have commented on it & we would have had to have heard about it from Bob Ryan or some other Boston reporter.

                    I can't tell you how happy I am to have real actual sports reporting done at the star & not just p.r. releases by the team.

                    I still hold out hope for a good season & they are still more fun to watch than they have been for a long time.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                      Speaking of Boston reporters, there's this Pacers snippet:

                      Bird identified Jamaal Tinsley and Sarunas Jasikevicius as two of the four Indy players who weren't playing well, the others being Danny Granger and Stephen Jackson.

                      http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._long_overdue/
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        Although once again I will now take the time to thank the Star for having an honest reporter who is not afraid to print this stuff.

                        Other reporters, no names mentioned, would have just not even have commented on it & we would have had to have heard about it from Bob Ryan or some other Boston reporter.
                        I know your position, still I wouldn't have used the word honest in that sentence. I don't think honesty has much to do with it unless you think not reporting everything is dishonest.

                        And if that is what you think I don't think the Star has changed. They still only report what they want to. What am I talking about?

                        Monday Stephen Jackson had a court date in Michigan. The Star had two articles on it. The main one read thus . . .

                        http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../61113046/1088

                        Star staff report

                        DETROIT - Pacers guard Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of probation violation and returned to Indiana. He is scheduled to appear Jan. 26 before Oakland County District Court judge Julie Nicholson.

                        His attorney, James Burdick, said Jackson pleaded not guilty "because he is not guilty."

                        Jackson's trial in Indianapolis could impact his case in Michigan. If found guilty of violating probation, he faces up to 93 days in jail.

                        "I can only guess what the judge will do," prosector John Pietrofesa said.
                        -------

                        The second article was halfway down an article titled, "More Foster may help rebounding." It read this way . . .

                        http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...611140402/1088


                        Jackson back in court

                        Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty Monday in Rochester Hills, Mich., to a misdemeanor charge of violating probation. He is scheduled to appear Jan. 26 in Oakland County District Court.

                        "Feeling good. Feeling good," Jackson told The Associated Press after his brief court appearance. "Just ready to get a workout in and get ready for our next game. That's my whole point: just getting back to basketball."

                        Michigan prosecutors say Jackson's recent arrest in Indianapolis violated probation. Jackson, whose original charge stemmed from his role in a Nov. 19, 2004, brawl between Pacers players and Pistons fans, was charged with criminal recklessness and misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct stemming from a fight Oct. 6 at a strip club. His trial is scheduled to start Jan. 8 in Indianapolis.

                        That trial could affect his case in Michigan, which carries a maximum sentence of 93 days in jail.
                        -----

                        What's wrong with those articles? Nothing on the surface, but they left out something I thought important. ESPN reported this from the Associated Press . . .

                        Jackson pleads not guilty on probation violation charge Associated Press


                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2660493
                        Jackson

                        ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich. -- Indiana Pacers guard Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty to a probation violation charge on Monday.

                        Michigan prosecutors said Jackson violated his probation after being accused of firing a gun outside a strip club in Indiana last month.

                        Jackson, who appeared Monday for arraignment in district court, could face up to three months in jail if found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. His next court appearance in Michigan is scheduled for Jan. 26.

                        Jackson was serving probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor assault and battery charges in September 2005 for his role in a 2004 brawl between Pacers players and fans at The Palace of Auburn Hills. He is charged in Indiana with criminal recklessness -- a felony -- and misdemeanor counts of battery and disorderly conduct.


                        "Feeling good. Feeling good," Jackson said after his brief court appearance north of Detroit. "Just ready to get a workout in and get ready for our next game. That's my whole point: just getting back to basketball."

                        Police said Jackson fired a gun in the air at least five times during an Oct. 6 fight outside Club Rio. Jackson originally told police that he fired the gun in self-defense, but Marion County (Ind.) Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Jackson retrieved his gun from his car and fired it before he was struck and injured by another car.

                        Defense attorney James Burdick said Jackson had fully completed the terms of his 12-month probation earlier this year and therefore was not on probation at the time of his arrest in Indianapolis.

                        "Stephen Jackson pleaded not guilty, because he is not guilty," Burdick said outside court. "He is doing great. He's a great guy who loves Indiana, loves the team, loves playing for the people of Indiana."


                        His trial is scheduled to start Jan. 8 in Indianapolis. The criminal recklessness charge carries a prison term of six months to three years.

                        Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
                        -----

                        You would think the Star would report that Jackson's attorney said Jackson had already competed his teams of probation thus he wasn't guilty. The Star didn't report this and I wondered why since they cover the Pacers and it's germane to the story.

                        Could be any number of reasons they didn't report it. I don't think it's the reason, but it occurred to me that they could want to keep things stirred up because it sells newspapers too. How a newspaper slants things does have a bearing on what people think. Would they do that? Haw Haw . . . sure they would if they thought it would sell newspapers some way!

                        Back on topic. One thing is for sure, JO was very unhappy about something that went on in that game. Two things occur to me. He was unhappy with Rick in some way (rotation, game plan, calling plays, he didn't give Jeff more minutes like he said he would, etc.) or as has been said, JO was unhappy with his touches.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Speaking of Boston reporters, there's this Pacers snippet:

                          Bird identified Jamaal Tinsley and Sarunas Jasikevicius as two of the four Indy players who weren't playing well, the others being Danny Granger and Stephen Jackson.

                          http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb..._long_overdue/
                          Most likely JO was fuming about the attitude, effort, and basketball IQ of one or more of these guys, and probably not Danny.

                          An alternative: I remember last year when JO was furious about guys laughing and joking in the locker room after a terrible loss, like nothing was wrong. Maybe that happened again.

                          I seriously doubt it was over lack of "touches" or the game plan. When you get blown out by one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, it ain't all game-planning.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                            Most likely JO was fuming about the attitude, effort, and basketball IQ of one or more of these guys, and probably not Danny.

                            An alternative: I remember last year when JO was furious about guys laughing and joking in the locker room after a terrible loss, like nothing was wrong. Maybe that happened again.

                            I seriously doubt it was over lack of "touches" or the game plan. When you get blown out by one of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, it ain't all game-planning.
                            There was a shot near the end of the game where the camera panned across the Pacer's bench and Jack was joking and laughing with the guy (Danny?) to his left and JO was on the other side of Jack with a look of disgust on his face.

                            On a side note, who is going to call into the Rick Carlisle show tonight and ask what the heated exchange was about? C'mon guys, it's up to us.

                            -J

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                              All this makes me think is: Oh, boy! Took all of eight games before signs of tension and frustration started to rear their ugly head.

                              Hopefully this is either something legit and/or just an isolated incident. It's easy to get steamed after a bad loss. But what happened to all the harmony and good feelings we were so glad to see just a few games ago?

                              Or is it just a by-product of the off-season personnel and system overhaul?
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X