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

Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

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

  • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

    Originally posted by A-Train View Post
    I'm starting to get nervous about the game that's about to happen a little over fours hours from now, I come here for some Pacers talk, and Tim Donaghy is the topic de jour?

    Hmmmm....
    I was really nervous before game #4, but not now. I don't have high expectations now. But before game #4 the pacers had their opportunity in that game to put themselves in a position to win the series, but they didn't. I figure you only get 1 chance

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Think about this for a second.

      You're a professional referee in the middle of a gambling ring. You bet on the games that you officiate. You're going to have such a strong sense of morality, eventhough you're already breaking numberous federal laws, that you're not going to influence the game?

      Wow, what a strong upstanding man Tim Donaghy. The same upstanding man that people call a liar from all his other allegations.

      It doesn't make any sense.

      Why would a guy bet tens of thousands of dollars by using his inside information, and not use his other advantages as well?

      Doesn't even pass the sniff test.
      You do understand by opening the line of questioning of morality, you open up the question of his integrity

      Comment


      • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

        I have read all of those excerpts. Certainly it describes very inappropriate behavior from referees. Lots of stupid, unoprofessional, juvenile behavior.

        Where is the part about game-fixing-- making money from gamblers by making calls a certain way to favor one team?

        This article is perhaps a little less vague and while certainly making no defense of Donaghy, describes what it is that he did:


        Tim Donaghy continues to claim that he did not fix games


        http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...not-fix-games/

        Tim Donaghy relayed inside information about the NBA to gamblers. He was involved in bets on games he was refereeing. He was sent to prison for 11 months because of what he did. Since he got out of jail, Donaghy has gone on the offensive. He published a book which claims that he was able to pick NBA games, against the spread, with a 70% success rate, thanks to his intimate understanding of the biases and tendencies of his fellow referees. He has repeatedly and fervently denied that he ever intentionally used his whistle to impact the game in a way that would benefit him and the bets he made on the games he was officiating.

        I don't know if Donaghy fixed games or not. You assert that he himself says that he did. The national sportswriter who wrote the article above most definitely claims that Donaghy says nothing of the sort.

        I should believe you, Since86, that he admitted to this, and not believe the completely contradictory statement that is the very title of this linked article, because.... why????
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-24-2012, 04:33 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


        • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

          It's splitting hairs, playing semantics, whatever you want to call it.

          He admits to not calling the game correctly, like the above quoted section about calling ticky-tack fouls. He say's it was due to how the league wanted it officiated. It's not fixing games, but rather following orders, from his perspective. I think it's a complete and utter justification, in his mind, for why he felt okay for doing what he did.

          But merely admitting that you're not calling the game correctly, is admitting that you've fixed games. He admits to not making foul calls to win a $20 bet. That's fixing the game.

          EDIT: I have no doubt that Tim is a liar. I'm just not sure what he's actually lying about. Either way, when you don't call the game as the rules stipulate, and you do it on purpose, it's fixing a game. Whether it was to be compliant with the league, to benefit from your mob bets, or to win simple bets with your buddies, it doesn't change that he purposefully influenced the game.

          EDIT2: I don't really care if you believe me. I'm not saying that Tim is correct. I'm saying that whether or not what you believe about Tim and his allegations, we should atleast be able to agree that the NBA created a culture where officials can influence the game and no one from the league office knows/cares. And that's a problem.
          Last edited by Since86; 05-24-2012, 04:27 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

            Here's a theory by Adrian Wojnarowski as to who may have indirectly ordered the hit on Stephenson:

            http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--de...-20120523.html

            Dexter Pittman abides by Pat Riley's Heat code by cracking Lance Stephenson

            By Adrian Wojnarowski | Yahoo! Sports – 23 hours ago

            No one ever covered LeBron James’ back this way in Cleveland. Maybe it was the composition of the Cavaliers' roster, the fact they never carried an old-school Juwan Howard to police the locker room and bench. Maybe it was because James didn’t elicit that kind of loyalty, that kind of two-way protection for his teammates.

            When it comes to confrontation, James has always shied away. He doesn’t like it on the floor, nor off it. If the Indiana Pacers believed James was responsible for dispatching benchwarmer Dexter Pittman to obliterate Lance Stephenson on a drive to the basket, they probably have the wrong man. It’s hard to believe Pittman made the decision to get suspended on his own, but privately he isn’t sharing that information.

            Tyler Hansbrough hit Dwyane Wade with a hard flagrant foul in Game 5. (AP)Rest assured, Heat president Pat Riley loved Udonis Haslem’s flagrant foul on Tyler Hansbrough and, yes, Pittman’s assault on Stephenson in Game 5. Haslem is suspended for Game 6 and Pittman will miss Miami's next three games, but the hard fouls were straight out of Riles’ handbook, the way for a marginal young big man to earn his way with the Heat.

            Pittman understood the message Howard had been sending with his pursuit of Stephenson, and clearly acted in accordance with the sniff of violence in the air. Stephenson offended James, but it’s doubtful James pushed for this kind of retaliation. In fact, here’s a story on how James sees retaliation: In February 2006, Rasheed Wallace clobbered Zydrunas Ilgauskas in a Detroit-Cleveland rivalry game. Gash. Blood everywhere. Big Z had to leave the floor and go to the locker room to get bandaged before returning to finish the game. When it was over, Wallace made clear the shot was intentional.

            Here’s what bothered Ilguaskas, a source in the Cavaliers' locker room remembered: “He looks out on the court in the second half, and there’s LeBron talking with 'Sheed like nothing happened,” the source said. “They were hanging out on the court, joking, and it really bothered Z. But that’s LeBron – or, at least, that was him.”

            The Heat played this perfectly: They made Stephenson pay for that choke sign to James in Game 2 and showed the Pacers and everyone else standing between Miami and a championship that they’ll defend their star. And they did it with Pittman, a player the Heat could afford to take a suspension without costing the team. What’s more, Miami has re-dictated terms of this Eastern conference semifinals. The Heat lead 3-2, and they may have the Pacers thinking more about retaliation in Game 6 than playing well enough to win.

            Perhaps Pittman decided to deliver that devastating shot to Stephenson, but a source close to Pittman insisted it simply wouldn’t be in Pittman's DNA to execute that plan on his own. Howard had been on the trail of Stephenson throughout the weekend, calling him out near the Pacers' locker room on Saturday and confronting him on the floor before Sunday's game.

            Udonis Haslem retaliated with a flagrant foul on Hansbrough later in Game 5. I was standing courtside when Howard approached Stephenson before Game 4. Howard was angry, barking at Stephenson, telling him he better learn to shut his mouth. Stephenson had that uneasy smile, trying to play it cool, but he was clearly unnerved about the possibility that Howard had come over to fight him. Stephenson is useless to the Pacers, but the rest of the roster watched and listened to Howard come calling for him. This was no accident. Howard’s a pro, and he seemed determined to impact this series without ever having to play a meaningful minute.


            Deep down, Pacers president Larry Bird had to admire Howard. He comes out of a different time in the NBA, a different protocol, and Bird clearly understood the Pacers weren’t simply getting blown out in Game 5, but beat up, too. This is why he told Mike Wells of the Indianapolis Star: “We are soft. S-O-F-T,” words to marinate with these Pacers until Thursday night's Game 6 in Indianapolis.

            Bird hated that the Pacers stood there and let the shot to Stephenson go unanswered, that shots to Tyler Hansbrough and David West had gone unanswered. Nevertheless, the Pacers introduced the physical play into this series, and the Heat merely have escalated it. The Celtics still don’t forgive Dwyane Wade for the tackle on Rajon Rondo that dislocated his elbow in the Eastern Conference semifinals a year ago and ultimately dispatched Boston’s best player out of the playoffs.

            Well, Bird sounded the call on Riley and these Heat for Game 6, and suddenly everything has a feel of the 1980s, a different time, a different game. In the middle of it all, James is the uneasy, uncomfortable center of a lingering, violent tone in this series.

            Whatever happens, it always comes back to LeBron James. Someone’s going to get hit on Thursday night and, rest assured, James will brace for this truth: If the Pacers are going down in this series, they’ll probably try to take someone with them. Through it all, though, these Miami Heat have James’ back, and that could go a long, long way for them on their championship chase.
            Honestly, it makes some sense....but I'm pretty sure that one can find sterling examples to show to Juwan of the Heat doing something that would be considered disprespectful to another Player.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

              Influencing the game by being a bad referee and by playing stupid games with other referees for fun (like who is the last to call a foul, so they don't have to pay the tip to the ball boy) is a strange definition of game-fixing.

              I am not saying it is right, or good, or that refs ought to do that crap. Just that it doesn't make me want to fabricate a tinfoil hat and assume that the outcome of NBA games are predetermined.

              The most serious charges never seem to involve Donoghy himself- those stories are always about other refs being told by the league how to make a call. That seems to be very convenient, since if he didn't do it personally, then he doesn't have to tell exactly how it happened- who made the call from the league office, etc.

              I think the details in the book show that he did a lot of very unprofessional stuff and that maybe enjoys embellishing whenever possible, most likely to juice up his book sales.
              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


              • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                I am not saying it is right, or good, or that refs ought to do that crap. Just that it doesn't make me want to fabricate a tinfoil hat and assume that the outcome of NBA games are predetermined.

                I have never once said that games are predetermined.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                  I don't think that game-fixing means making bad calls, or making calls for the wrong reason (like goofing around in an unprofessional manner). In the common usage, when someone says "this game is fixed" I have always understood that the person making the statement believes that the outcome has been predetermined, either by who wins & who looses, or by point spread.

                  From my point of view we will just have to agree to disagree, if we cannot even define what game-fixing means.

                  I intend this to be my last post on this topic
                  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


                  • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                    Spot fixing would probably be a more accurate term for what Tim Donaghy says officials do.

                    But my whole contention is that the NBA knows of things, like superstar calls, and does nothing about them. Either officials are following orders, or the league doesn't care to correct the problem.

                    Either way, it's not a good look for the NBA.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Here's a theory by Adrian Wojnarowski as to who may have indirectly ordered the hit on Stephenson:

                      Honestly, it makes some sense....but I'm pretty sure that one can find sterling examples to show to Juwan of the Heat doing something that would be considered disprespectful to another Player.
                      Except that it was WADE who introduced the physical play into this series.

                      His hit on Collison has been completely whitewashed from public knowledge, apparently.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                        Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                        Except that it was WADE who introduced the physical play into this series.

                        His hit on Collison has been completely whitewashed from public knowledge, apparently.
                        No, what the article suggests and what we were speculating was that it was "someone" that had spurred Pittman to do what he did to Lance. I'm not talking about what event started all of this ( the DC shoulder Block by Wade ), I'm talking about who probably planted the notion of landing a hard foul to Lance. Juwan Howard makes sense....the guy is probably old-school and more of the guy to keep the Team in line.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          No, what the article suggests and what we were speculating was that it was "someone" that had spurred Pittman to do what he did to Lance. I'm not talking about what event started all of this ( the DC shoulder Block by Wade ), I'm talking about who probably planted the notion of landing a hard foul to Lance. Juwan Howard makes sense....the guy is probably old-school and more of the guy to keep the Team in line.
                          Sorry, what I was referring to was something said in the article, not what you said.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pittman, Haslem, suspended, Tyler gets Flagrant 2

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                            I loved that during the intro to game six a video of this clip was played a few times. Stay classy ESPN.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by D0NT SH0OT ME View Post
                              I loved that during the intro to game six a video of this clip was played a few times. Stay classy ESPN.
                              Next time we play the heat (regular season) I want a really freaking hard foul the second one of Those two comes down the lane...IDC who does it but at that point we will get their attention. (don't want anyone hurt, but a little retaliation of our own is needed)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X