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:
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

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

Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
    If anyone actually expected 20 points per game from him, I have only sympathy for Paul.
    No kidding.

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    I'm not ready to give up on Paul George. He's still just a 22 year old third year player. That's the age that a rookie is if they stay all four years in college. That's the age Roy was in his rookie season, and look how much better he's become in his mid 20's. Paul is still a very young kid in a man's league. Virtually no player in the NBA peaks at age 22. You don't know what you really have in a player until they are at least age 24-25. If Paul was playing like this in his fifth season, then yes I'd agree that he likely wasn't ever going to get much better. But he still has all the time in the world. You don't give up on a talent like Paul when they're just 22 years old unless you get some trade package that blows you away.

    The problem is that this forum hyped him up way too much and had T-Mac-like expectations for him.
    Before last nights game, Paul was averaging 14.3pts. Not what we wanted, and some expected obviously, but let's put it into perspective for a 3rd year player. (Assuming it stays at that level throughout the remainder of the season) Last season in his wonderful 3rd year, James Harden averaged 16.8pts, and that got him the best bench player in the NBA. Yeah, it's the bench but it also got Harden a max contract. I'm not saying Paul is on that level, I'm saying expecting 17pts would be a pretty exceptional step forward into becoming a star.

    Danny's third year, he went from averaging 12pts to 19pts. That won him the MIP award. Obviously Paul's progression isn't that good, but that was the best improvement in the entire NBA. That shouldn't be the standard.

    Paul averaging 14pts, while isn't a best case scenario, is still showing signs of progress. Paul has shot horribly, on shots we know he can make. If he starts just hitting a little lower than his average, that ppg will increase to 15/16. Right back at that Harden level. (who was playing 31mins a night to get that btw and PG is at 32)

    No, Paul hasn't played well yet, but the fact that he's averaging 14ps while playing like crap actually gives me hope that he can keep progressing forward. If he doesn't end up as a superstar, so what? That's the best case scenario, not the standard.

    EDIT: And to keep with the Harden theme (and no, I'm not comparing them) Harden also averaged 4.1rebs and 3.7assists. Paul is averaging 6.5rebs and 3.4assists.

    Paul is turning into a pretty good player, and I just hope that the expectation that he should be a superstar doesn't spoil that.

    Last night sucked though.
    Last edited by Since86; 12-02-2012, 02:12 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Thompson is the same age and has been in the league a yr less than PG, and he doesn't seem to be struggling to look to shoot or score.
      Thompson scored 4 points in 2/8 shooting (in 23 minutes) against OKC earlier this season.

      Thompson also scored 2 points in 1/6 shooting (in 22 minutes) against Utah last season.

      Gordon Hayward scored 4 points in 1/8 shooting (in 27 minutes) against Denver this season.

      He also scored 4 points in 1/10 shooting (in 33 minutes) against San Antonio in Game 3 of the SAS vs Utah playoff series.

      He scored 0 points in 0/7 shooting (in 25 minutes) in Game 4 of the same series.

      He also had several low scoring games during the last season.

      The point is that it is natural for those guys to have some low scoring games. It's also natural to have some big scoring nights. They will be more consistent as they mature.

      One thing I noticed while searching for their games was that Klay Thompson seemed to be less prone to low scoring nights. But if you look at their career numbers it makes absolute sense.

      Klay Thompson is averaging 11.8 FGAs per game in his career. 4.6 of those are 3 point shots. He is averaging 15.6 FGAs this season. 6.8 of those are 3 point shots.

      Gordon Hayward is averaging 6.9 FGAs per game in his career. 1.9 of those are 3 point shots. He is averaging 11.1 FGAs this season. 3.3 of those are 3 point shots.

      Paul George is averaging 8.7 FGAs per game in his career. 3.2 of those are 3 point shots. He is averaging 13.5 FGAs this season. 5.3 of those are 3 point shots.

      So, it's pretty natural that Thompson is scoring more because he's also shooting more. He also posts the highest Usage Rate of the 3. His career USG% is 24.5%. PG's career USG% is 19.2% and Hayward's is 17.7%.

      So, why is he shooting more than the other 2? Well, it's quite simple, really.

      Golden State runs a perimeter-oriented system. Utah and Indiana run post-heavy offenses.

      So, it's quite natural that Klay attempts (and hits) more shots than the other two. He has the green light to do so.
      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.


      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

        Originally posted by xtacy View Post
        said this before and gonna say it again. his problem is lack of mental toughness and that killer instinct. it has nothing to do with age. you either have it or don't.
        I think he is who he is in this regard, but you have to consider that he can still make strides as a skill/finesse player.


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
          I think he is who he is in this regard, but you have to consider that he can still make strides as a skill/finesse player.
          Reggie was a finesse player but he had a finesse game and was agressive. Paul needs some work.


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

            DJ gets a C+? Another too kind grade. Someone has a man crush. Look at +/- in 1st when DJ hit the court. I told Gnome that Jack might have 20 by the half. Also said he would hit halfcourt over DJ before he did. Game over.


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

              Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
              If anyone actually expected 20 points per game from him, I have only sympathy for Paul.
              In an interview last year, Paul said his goal was to break the Pacers all time scoring record.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post

                Just like Roy doesn't really need to score that much. With Danny, West, and Hill we just need Roy and Paul to be complementary players.

                I about choked on this statement while eating a Triscuit! I sure in the he11 would hope a player being paid the MAX is more than a complementary player. I'm sure Roy's agent didn't sell Walsh on Hibbert just being a complementary for a max contract. You can bet Portland looked at Hibbert as more than a complimentary player when offering a max contract. If that is all Hibbert needs to be then he should have been paid D Jordan and J McGee complimemtary 10 mil salary.


                • #38
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  I about choked on this statement while eating a Triscuit! I sure in the he11 would hope a player being paid the MAX is more than a complementary player. I'm sure Roy's agent didn't sell Walsh on Hibbert just being a complementary for a max contract. You can bet Portland looked at Hibbert as more than a complimentary player when offering a max contract. If that is all Hibbert needs to be then he should have been paid D Jordan and J McGee complimemtary 10 mil salary.
                  Hibbert is the anchor of the defense, and must be accounted for by all defenses. He might be a "complimentary" player on offense, but he is the most important complimentary player in the league.

                  With Paul his potential lies in his all-around game, not his scoring. His peak scoring wise really should be about 18ppg, and he is not the type of player you just give the ball and tell them to do his thing like so many people want him to be. While his ball handling is much improved it still isn't good enough to do that. If people would just understand the type of player Paul, instead of projecting what they want him to be (i.e. LeBron or Durant) maybe you guys will realize how much better he is than last year. The only thing preventing him from averaging 16+ppg is his career low type of shooting, which is remarkably similar to how Granger shot last year in the first month or so. George struggled on defense last night, but anyone that has watched George could have told you he was going to struggle. He struggled for the same reason he always struggles against active sharpshooters. He has improved from last year, but he still has a long way to go in that category.

                  George played like **** last night, but it has been the only game where he has played like **** from start to finish this season. That tends to happen when you play teams that are able to expose your biggest weakness. While he has had defensive lapses this season, he hasn't had anymore than anyone else. They are just more obvious than everyone else because we are so used to his great defense, and typically he is guarding the other teams best perimeter player. While he hasn't done a great job of scoring he has found other ways to contribute most of the season. If it wasn't for his 9 assists against Sacramento David West most likely doesn't go off for as much as he did nor do we win that game. So far he has had one game where he was not able to positively affect the game. Not bad for a third year player.


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                    PG 18 ppg? Nah. I'd say more like 14 is his ceiling. What we're seeing is about the best we'll get on offense, IMO. He might become more consistent though.

                    I want the coaching staff to tell him they want him to be a defensive stopper, and I mean a true stopper: able to play off the ball as well as on and the passing lane. Guy could be a defensive force, DPOY type. That's where his impact identity lies, so tell him to focus on that.

                    Then if we get some consistent O it's just gravy, and he's a great complementary player to West, Hill, Granger and (hopefully) Hibbert. But actually, Hill and Hibbert are definitely options 4 and 5. They don't have the DNA to be any more offensively.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                      Can we agree that he will never have a breakout year?He will be an excellent defender but never ever a constant offensive threat.
                      Never forget


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                        Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
                        Can we agree that he will never have a breakout year?He will be an excellent defender but never ever a constant offensive threat.
                        Yep a player that's only 22 would never have a breakout year .....
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          In an interview last year, Paul said his goal was to break the Pacers all time scoring record.
                          Slow and steady wins the race?
                          This is the darkest timeline.


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            In an interview last year, Paul said his goal was to break the Pacers all time scoring record.
                            Brandon Rush said he wanted to be the next Reggie. Doesn't mean I expected him to be.
                            You Got The Tony!!!!!!


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Yep a player that's only 22 would never have a breakout year .....
                              May sound way premature but you can see how weak he is mentally and shows no signs of consistency whatsoever.He will never become great player,a player that a team will rely on him.
                              I will thankfully eat a humble pie if i am proven wrong but i just can't see it.

                              LOL remember last year when we both said we were aspiring for Paul to become someone like Rudy Gay?Yeah,forget about that.
                              Last edited by Johanvil; 12-02-2012, 08:08 PM.
                              Never forget


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Warriors came out to play

                                It's not so much that the expectation for George is to score 20 ppg. The Pacers run an equal opportunity offense, therefore having a player average 20 ppg is not likely, especially when the player is at best a 3rd scoring option. But it is NOT unreasonable to expect George to start becoming more consistent in the way he plays and how he effects the box score.

                                Without any prior knowledge of Granger not being available, I would have expected George to provide between 10-14 points every night out, with a few 18-20 point games and a few 6-8 point games sprinkled in. When he isn't hitting his shots I would expect him to get to the line to contribute his minimum share of points. For the most part, George has contributed those points, although with Granger out, he is not contributing additional points to help compensate. Where I'm most disappointed in George offensively is in his inability to do the things he needs to do to get to the line and in the fact that I haven't seen a significant improvement in his ability to drive the ball.

                                Defensively, you guys can give him accolades all you want, but frankly, I am extremely disappointed. Paul George is a great on the ball defender, although like most of his teammates he oftentimes loses his man through screens. But he absolutely sucks in weak side off-the-ball defense. So many on this forum hated Dunleavy's defense because he had difficulty staying with quicker opponents. But one thing that Dunleavy did do was to play very good weak side defense.

                                Paul George claims to want to be a great player. Everyone talks about his work ethic, but frankly I don't see a lot of results. If you have such great athletic talents as Paul George and can literally stifle many wings in this league when you guard them man on man, then why in the hell can't you also guard them when they don't have the ball? Is anyone catching on yet? It should be very clear. Mr George lacks focus. It's that simple. He is not mentally tough enough to force himself to maintain the focus necessary to shut down his man whether or not his man has the ball. And, if you are very often guarding your opponent's best scorer, is there really anything more important for you to do on the defensive end of the floor than to take your opponent out of his offense... to prevent him from scoring?

                                That leads me to what I think might result in the worst of all catch-22s for the Pacers. Like a former player named Bender, George shows a ton of potential. So much so that other teams will maintain interest. This season, the Pacers have expressed faith in George and have increased their dependency on him. So, what do we do following next season when it comes time to re-sign George if he continues his current inconsistency and also is unable to provide consistent focus defensively in order to become the truly elite defender he is capable of being? Will we be forced by other teams to sign him to a Bender-sized contract of 7M-8M per year if we want to keep him, all the time still praying that he becomes a mentally tougher player and that his potential finally comes to fruition?

                                I've said all along that this is George's crap or get off the pot year. I think the Pacers have easily determined which post they need to hitch to. Granger is the SF, period. From my perspective at least, that question has already been decided. For me, it is now a question of who shall you keep. Do you re-sign West and know that you have your PF slot manned for another 3 years or so with an excellent player? Or, do replace West and the following year spend the bucks to keep George and continue to hope that you might have your SG slot covered? I suppose that it is entirely possible that the Pacers re-sign West and continue to wait on George, knowing they may have to trade one of the two by next year's trade deadline.

                                P.S. If I were Paul George, I would get out some old tape of Ron Artest's Pacers games if I wanted to know how a player is to be guarded away from the ball.
                                Last edited by beast23; 12-02-2012, 08:12 PM.