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

Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

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

  • #61
    Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    Nope...Barry REALLY didn't know that much about the Pacers. For a NATIONAL televised game, Barry was CLEARLY in favor of the Bulls. When I watched the Bulls/Pacers games and gotten the Chicago feed, they're commentary wasn't as bad as Barry's was.

    The way Barry was talking, I would have expected that from a local televised game, and NOT from a national televised game.
    I'm honestly surprised most Pacers fans didn't mute the TV and listen to Mark Boyle on the radio. That's what I would have done. Your last sentence is dead-on, and I'm not a fan of either team.

    As far as the refs, I didn't think they had much of an impact on the outcome. Although I was mildly amused at the trio assigned to that game, and was shocked that Violet Palmer got assigned to a playoff game.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

      Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
      What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

      Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.
      I don't think thats what he meant. If Rose picked up two offensive fouls from driving in the first half, his whole game becomes different because he has to be more careful as he is in foul trouble. He can't just fly into the lane and expect to draw the foul, which is what happened yesterday. He would always be risking the offensive foul. It would have been a very different game we saw from Rose. And considering his outside shot wasn't falling, it would have been to our advantage.

      Also our bigs wouldn't have been in as much foul trouble. Hibbert had to sit for awhile with his fouls. Having him in the game more would have helped us as well.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

        Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
        What kind of look were you hoping for? Up 10 with 3 mins and 30 seconds to go not a good enough look.

        Those 2 calls were bang bang plays anyway. As fans we know refs aren't perfect. Again I hate to say it, but a beauty of D Rose's game is that he can force refs into making imperfect calls due to his quickness. I can't fault him or the refs for that. That's why they're called tough calls.
        Did you think we had that game won at the 3:30 mark? I sure didn't. I figured there'd be some sort of Bulls comeback. I had my hopes, but the way Rose was getting to the line, I figured the 3:30 would last around 10 minutes. And it did.

        Virtually all fouls in the NBA are of the "bang bang" variety. Rose got the benefit of every bang. I just checked. There were zero charging calls on him all game.

        "Tough calls" are usually a euphemism for a refereeing mistake. And I don't see why one can't fault a referee for making a mistake. NBA refs are vaunted as "the best in the business," the "top of the line", the "pinnacles of the refereeing profession." Yet it's the same old thing. Rose, LeBron, Nowitzky, the Star treatment. If the refs won't call a charge on Rose, then, as Peck said, he's just going to continue taking it inside seeking or making contact secure in the knowledge that he'll get to shoot FTs.

        Yeah, the Bulls played tough over the last 3:30. But they also got virtually every call during that period too. The lone exception was one Noah shooting foul on Roy. The blatant hack on Collison at the 1:30 mark wasn't called and it was pivotal. It led to a Rose fast-break layup that let Chicago tie the game instead of us potentially going up 4. It was an horrendously bad no-call.

        There wasn't much equity in the last couple of minutes. And it wasn't all Bull poise and Pacer ineptitude.
        Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 03:39 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Again I agree that the final 3 min. was not ref induced.

          However is it wrong to ask would he have had the game he had if he had been given two charging fouls. I don't remember exactly but I think both of the fouls you are refering two ended up as and 1 plays. That's six points, take six points away and how does the game change? Even if they were not and 1's take four points away and how does the game change?

          I am not blaming the referee's for the loss, see my odd thoughts post for that, but I can't say that it wasn't a factor either.
          I agree, it's not wrong to ask/question. That's what fans of the losing team do. I played the what if game for hours following the tough loss.

          Nonetheless, we can complain/wish/hope/criticize/point out factors (insert a better word if you have one) until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that calls like that are basically written in stone when you have a player like Rose (someone athletic enough to force tough calls). It's a great and overlooked asset of his game.
          My INDIANA Pacers dream team
          Coaching Staff: Larry Bird (HC), Mike Woodson and Steve Alford (AC's)
          Starting 5: Mike Conley, Eric Gordon, Gordon Hayward, Zach Randolph, and Greg Oden
          Bench: George Hill, Josh McRoberts, Courtney Lee, Luke Harangody, Jeff Teague, Jared Jefferies, Rodney Carney, Matt Howard, and the Zeller brothers.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

            Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
            I agree, it's not wrong to ask/question. That's what fans of the losing team do. I played the what if game for hours following the tough loss.

            Nonetheless, we can complain/wish/hope/criticize/point out factors (insert a better word if you have one) until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that calls like that are basically written in stone when you have a player like Rose (someone athletic enough to force tough calls). It's a great and overlooked asset of his game.
            Phil Jackson is very good at "complaining" about unfair advantages, getting himself fined, and setting the stage for more equitable calls favoring the lakers. he puts the refs on notice that he will not let them get away with the star treatments, walks, etc.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              I don't think thats what he meant. If Rose picked up two offensive fouls from driving in the first half, his whole game becomes different because he has to be more careful as he is in foul trouble. He can't just fly into the lane and expect to draw the foul, which is what happened yesterday. He would always be risking the offensive foul. It would have been a very different game we saw from Rose. And considering his outside shot wasn't falling, it would have been to our advantage.

              Also our bigs wouldn't have been in as much foul trouble. Hibbert had to sit for awhile with his fouls. Having him in the game more would have helped us as well.
              IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

              I understand how things would have been different.

              With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

              IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

              Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.
              Last edited by Thoreau87; 04-17-2011, 03:54 PM. Reason: typo
              My INDIANA Pacers dream team
              Coaching Staff: Larry Bird (HC), Mike Woodson and Steve Alford (AC's)
              Starting 5: Mike Conley, Eric Gordon, Gordon Hayward, Zach Randolph, and Greg Oden
              Bench: George Hill, Josh McRoberts, Courtney Lee, Luke Harangody, Jeff Teague, Jared Jefferies, Rodney Carney, Matt Howard, and the Zeller brothers.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                You really do not like Pacer fans very much do you?
                Incessant whining about biased and even fixed officiating was not always one of the defining characteristics of Pacers fans. It has unfortunately crept in, perhaps first spurred by legit anger at the awful LJ 4 point play. It's taken hold of late. One reason is perhaps overlap with the Colts fanbase, who have long embraced a paranoid attitude towards officials and been encouraged by team officials like Polian to do so. I don't think Larry Bird is an excuse-maker, and I wish fewer fans were also not prone to seeing officiating conspiracies lurking behind every tough defeat.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 04-17-2011, 04:01 PM.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                  Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                  Phil Jackson is very good at "complaining" about unfair advantages, getting himself fined, and setting the stage for more equitable calls favoring the lakers. he puts the refs on notice that he will not let them get away with the star treatments, walks, etc.
                  Can Vogel afford the fine ?


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                    Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
                    IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

                    I understand how things would have been different.

                    With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

                    IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

                    Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.
                    Thoreau, you're VERY wrong about that being a "clean" poke. It was a clear hack across both arms as he was going up for a shot. It was one of the most blatant fouls of the game. I've been reliving it in my mind over and over again. As I type this I can see the arm going across both of Collison's. And watching the resulting fast break that I'm pretty sure tied the game at that point. It makes my insides cringe as I sit here thinking about it. It was a VERY, VERY, VERY bad no call.

                    I'm not the only one here that's mentioned it, either. Sookie talked about it in one of her earlier posts. I was watching the game at BWW and I remember turning to Chris Denari and he was shaking his head in total disbelief.

                    And really, not calling fouls on "stars" is part of what star treatment is. Free trips to the line, the benefit of all doubts, the edge in every close call. Rose is everything you say, fast, good first step, strong, savvy. He's also Chicago's new Jordan and getting all the media hype that accompanies that. No star treatment? You've mentioned yourself that he probably charged at least twice (and I think maybe a couple of other times as well. I really would like to see a compendium of the fouls he got the benefit of). It isn't all his athleticism. He was given 21 foul shots. 21 21 21. Nothing like that has happened in nearly 10 years of playoff ball.

                    And not one charge in that mix? No reach-ins while guarding Collison either? No star treatment? Just "tough" call situations?

                    Come on, my brother. Be not naive. A star is born! Hark! I perceive a new star rising in the East! Nay, tis not a star, tis a nova! Nay a Supernova and 'tis of a rosy color and it looms over that Windy City. Tis the rebirth of MJ! Tis history repeating itself. Tis a new media darling rising whom we can all worship and adore by buying his shoes!
                    Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 04:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Incessant whining about biased and even fixed officiating was not always one of the defining characteristics of Pacers fans. It has unfortunately crept in, perhaps first spurred by legit anger at the awful LJ 4 point play. It's taken hold of late. One reason is perhaps overlap with the Colts fanbase, who have long embraced a paranoid attitude towards officials and been encouraged by team officials like Polian to do so. I don't think Larry Bird is an excuse-maker, and I wish fewer fans were also not prone to seeing officiating conspiracies lurking behind every tough defeat.
                      No one here has mentioned any conspiracy. Occam's Razor would point to another answer -- which has been mentioned here. Ineptitude. Violet Palmer, Joey Crawford, and Bennett Salvatore inspired ineptitude. That and star-inspired inevitability. And if we think the officiating is wanting in the process, do we just say nothing? Why? I admit it probably does no good. But if the officiating stinks, we, as fans, certainly have every right to complain about it. It's about the only right as fans that we have.

                      But while I reject any major conspiracies, I think that there really is a "go along and get along" chumminess that pervades the playoffs. And from that emerges a sense of inevitability. A sense that results are basically foreordained.

                      We go through 82 games to reach Nirvana -- being in the playoffs. Then, particularly in the First Round, everything spins into a sort of inevitable cycle - where intense games ensue with lowly underdog teams matched up against teams with superstars, -- superstars that for some reason get to play by their own sets of rules. And these stars are usually ensconced in major-market cities where they get big media hype. And because they're stars, it's OK that they get the benefit of all close calls. And the have-not teams, like Indiana, just have to lump it because, hey, that's the way it is. Their teams don't have stars and no one cares about you if you're from a town with a population of under 2 Million.

                      Rules-Shmoolz! Rules are different for the stars. We have to keep those stars shining, don't we? And besides, as stars, they are better than everyone else. Hence they deserve to get those "tough calls." And those big advertising contracts.

                      And the same NBA refs keep officiating the same games in the same old way -- getting older, making the same stupid calls without any perceived ill effect or consequences, merrily avoiding controversies by inevitably calling things the star's way. In this fashion, no boats are rocked. The right teams always win. No feathers are ruffled. No inconvenient upsets ensue. And one star's or another star's team is usually crowned as the new NBA Champ. And all the major markets and advertising people are happy, happy, happy. And David Stern is happy. And the big town owners are happy too.

                      And so it goes. We move on to next year's 82-game season wondering what new LeBron, what new Kobe, what new Carmelo, or what new Derrick Rose will emerge from what new big media market and what he will do to win that next NBA championship. And so on. And so on. And we in small-market areas hope too. We always hope.

                      So it's not really a refereeing conspiracy - the star treatment. It's more just taking the path of least resistance. And if Derrick Rose gets to go to the free throw line 21 times against 8th seed Indiana in this state of affairs, well, that's just the way it goes.

                      There will be no ill effects. Violet, Joey, and Bennett will go on to referee another day and everyone will be happy, happy, happy except star-less teams like the Pacers and their hopeful fans.
                      Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 07:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                        Originally posted by IndyHoya View Post
                        Thoreau, you're VERY wrong about that being a "clean" poke. It was a clear hack across both arms as he was going up for a shot. It was one of the most blatant fouls of the game. I've been reliving it in my mind over and over again. As I type this I can see the arm going across both of Collison's. And watching the resulting fast break that I'm pretty sure tied the game at that point. It makes my insides cringe as I sit here thinking about it. It was a VERY, VERY, VERY bad no call.

                        I'm not the only one here that's mentioned it, either. Sookie talked about it in one of her earlier posts. I was watching the game at BWW and I remember turning to Chris Denari and he was shaking his head in total disbelief.

                        And really, not calling fouls on "stars" is part of what star treatment is. Free trips to the line, the benefit of all doubts, the edge in every close call. Rose is everything you say, fast, good first step, strong, savvy. He's also Chicago's new Jordan and getting all the media hype that accompanies that. No star treatment? You've mentioned yourself that he probably charged at least twice (and I think maybe a couple of other times as well. I really would like to see a compendium of the fouls he got the benefit of). It isn't all his athleticism. He was given 21 foul shots. 21 21 21. Nothing like that has happened in nearly 10 years of playoff ball.

                        And not one charge in that mix? No reach-ins while guarding Collison either? No star treatment? Just "tough" call situations?

                        Come on, my brother. Be not naive. A star is born! Hark! I perceive a new star rising in the East! Nay, tis not a star, tis a nova! Nay a Supernova and 'tis of a rosy color and it looms over that Windy City. Tis the rebirth of MJ! Tis history repeating itself. Tis a new media darling rising whom we can all worship and adore by buying his shoes!
                        Like I said, I didn't get a definitive look at the Collison play and very well could be wrong.

                        I agree completely with your definition of a "star call" or "star treatment".

                        Still, the close calls I described (only 2 possible charges) could both be attributed to his athleticism making it extremely tough on a referee to call a charge. There's bang bang and Derrick Rose bang bang. The kid creates his own luck through physical dominance. Not saying being the heir (air) apparent to the GOAT doesn't help but every call that goes against our beloved Pacers can't be written off as a "star call".
                        My INDIANA Pacers dream team
                        Coaching Staff: Larry Bird (HC), Mike Woodson and Steve Alford (AC's)
                        Starting 5: Mike Conley, Eric Gordon, Gordon Hayward, Zach Randolph, and Greg Oden
                        Bench: George Hill, Josh McRoberts, Courtney Lee, Luke Harangody, Jeff Teague, Jared Jefferies, Rodney Carney, Matt Howard, and the Zeller brothers.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                          The last 3 minutes may not be able to be blamed on the refs, but the Bulls even being within reach to come back during the last three minutes can be. Without Rose getting every single call, most of them either being non-fouls or charging fouls suddenly instead of the Pacers only being up 10 points they are up 20 points, and it is a completely different game. The refs may not have been the difference at the end, but they were the difference for the previous 45 minutes.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                            Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
                            Like I said, I didn't get a definitive look at the Collison play and very well could be wrong.

                            I agree completely with your definition of a "star call" or "star treatment".

                            Still, the close calls I described (only 2 possible charges) could both be attributed to his athleticism making it extremely tough on a referee to call a charge. There's bang bang and Derrick Rose bang bang. The kid creates his own luck through physical dominance. Not saying being the heir (air) apparent to the GOAT doesn't help but every call that goes against our beloved Pacers can't be written off as a "star call".
                            I didn't see very many close calls. I know I am young, but maybe old guys just don't have the eyes to see those close calls as clearly as a younger person. If that is the case they probably shouldn't be NBA refs.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                              Originally posted by Thoreau87 View Post
                              IndyHoya and ilive4sports:

                              I understand how things would have been different.

                              With that said, we were still up 10 with 3 and half min to go and had every opportunity to close out the game. In that same closing stretch there were no bad calls made against the Pacers. We choked because our coach and players lack playoff experience.

                              IMO, Korver cleanly poked the ball away from Collison. He caught some arm after Collison flailed for no reason (other then to draw an undeserved foul). Didn't really see a definitive replay so I could be wrong.

                              Also IMO, there's a difference between star treatment and creating a tough call situation due to athleticism.
                              No doubt that the Pacers need to play better down the line. It's been a problem all season long. But even with the refs not making any bad calls in the last 3 minutes, the tempo and standards were already set. Rose got into the lane at the end of the game. Had the tone been set that he needs to be more cautious in his drives because he can pick up an offensive foul, attacking the basket would have been less of an option.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                I didn't see very many close calls. I know I am young, but maybe old guys just don't have the eyes to see those close calls as clearly as a younger person. If that is the case they probably shouldn't be NBA refs.
                                Once an NBA ref, always an NBA ref unless you get caught gambling on NBA games that you ref. That's against the rules. Otherwise, NBA refereeing is a lifetime meal ticket, deterioration of your vision, movement, bowels and thought processes notwithstanding. Age is no consideration. In the NBA, referees age like a fine wine. The older you are the better. With age comes "experience". If you're a demented, incontinent octogenarian, that's a plus for an NBA refereeing resume.
                                Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 07:51 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X