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

JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

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

  • #31
    Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

    Originally posted by Bat Boy
    My problem isn't that refs sometimes blow a call where the play is "too quick for the human eye" (a dubious proposition IMO, Kstat), but where they blow a call that is seen clearly by everyone in the arena -- like Larry Johnson's phantom 4 point play against the Pacers in '99 (which, BTW, the ref admitted he blew, the following year). Undoubtedly there are plays that the refs miss because they are screened or out of position, which I think you're referring to on the Tayshaun play, but there is simply no comparison with a grossly wrong call that everyone sees in real time, and no other ref steps up to correct the call.
    Thats simply human error, unless you subscribe to the theory it was rigged.

    In that sense, there was no "star call," simply a really bad one.

    I wish Laimbeer hadn't been whistled for that blatently wrong foul on Kareem in 1988. We'd have won the title. But he did, and the ref made a mistake. They happen to human beings. Had we not beaten LA the next year, that play would have gone down in infamy EVERY BIT as much as the LJ 4-point play.

    Also, I'll add that the LJ call was wrong IN HINDSIGHT. Its a gross exaggeration to say that it was CLEARLY a bad call to 20,000 people, as it happened. Also, the play happened on the sideline, where only ONE OFFICIAL had a good angle. I'd imagine looking at that play from the other sideline, it would be near IMPOSSIBLE to overrule.

    It was a very bad decision, but thats all it was. You just hope that refs dont screw up in a crucial moment like that.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

      Originally posted by Kstat
      Also, I'll add that the LJ call was wrong IN HINDSIGHT. Its a gross exaggeration to say that it was CLEARLY a bad call to 20,000 people, as it happened. Also, the play happened on the sideline, where only ONE OFFICIAL had a good angle. I'd imagine looking at that play from the other sideline, it would be near IMPOSSIBLE to overrule.

      It was a very bad decision, but thats all it was. You just hope that refs dont screw up in a crucial moment like that.
      You're point is well-taken, that it was just a bad call, but believe me, as one of the 20,000+ who were in attendance and watched it happen, it was in plain view and not caused by the ref simply having a bad angle. It was immediately apparent, and not just in hingsight. I had forgotten about the bad Laimbeer foul call of Kareem -- that must have stung too.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

        Originally posted by Bat Boy
        You're point is well-taken, that it was just a bad call, but believe me, as one of the 20,000+ who were in attendance and watched it happen, it was in plain view and not caused by the ref simply having a bad angle. It was immediately apparent, and not just in hingsight. I had forgotten about the bad Laimbeer foul call of Kareem -- that must have stung too.
        As a franchise that had never won a thing before, game 6 in 1988 stung like hell. They were 1 point and 12 seconds away from the NBA title, and Kareem got the ULTIMATE bail-out call, that had it not been called, it would have been Detroit ball with 12 seconds left and a 1-point lead.

        Thing is, it only made the players more determined to come back the next year and win the whole thing. They didn't leave room for a bad call here or there. They steamrolled everybody in the playoffs. A lesser team could have easily blamed the NBA and cried conspiracy, but the Bad Boys didn't. Bad calls happen. Injuries happen. Life is unfair and the NBA is no exception. But when players get it inot their heads that they're being cheated, they have no chance at all.

        Of course, the Pistons have more championships now than 25 out of 30 NBA franchises. The franchise is defined now by its great defensive teams. But had they gone winless, the defining moment in Pistons history would have been bad luck: game 5 of 1987 in Boston, and game 6 of 1988 in LA. Sometimes, you have to make your own luck, as they say.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

          Shade, I'm lovin' the publicity this is getting as well. It's fun to see the league sweat and fine their coaches for speaking their mind. I guess the freedom of speech amendment doesn't apply to the NBA.

          I finally came to grips with the NBA and its officiating when I realized that they "control" games. Let me explain...... Do you ever feel a big lead is safe? Do you ever feel like a large first half deficit is too hard to overcome? The answer is NO in both cases.

          The team that is behind tends to be a bit more agressive and refs typically ignore defensive contact (physical play) by the team that is behind. Ever notice how JO and players on every team can't seem to get the "and 1" when they have a big lead!?! It's the NBA's "theatre" of bringing games close for the "excitement" of a close game.

          I always know we have a chance to come back in a game where we are down big, because we can be aggressive on defense without fear of getting too many fouls called against us.

          The KEY FACTOR is making shots from both perspectives. If you have the lead but keep making shots despite the contact or create open jumpers, you can protect the lead. It's tough for the refs to pull the ball out of the basket. Ex. (Had Sacremento hit any damn shots in the 4th qtr a few years back, the Lakers wouldn't have caught them even though it would've been close).

          My proof and when I got "religion" about the NBA was when I was watching the satellite feed of the Knicks vs. Pacers series the year we made the finals and the feed and sound were left on while the rest of the world watched the time out commercials. The 3 officials were at center court discussing the game situation (as Hue Hollins mentioned they typically due in that interview someone posted about) and the microphones picked up Hue Evans (or Hollins...can't remember which) saying...and I quote "We have the game right where we want it, if they keep missing shots, there is nothing we can do about it" ....you then here on the feed Bill Walton "gasp" at what he just heard....then the sound and feed both cut out!

          The game situation was the Pacers with a lead and the Knicks trying to mount a comeback at MSGarden, but the Knicks couldn't throw it in the Ocean and we won the game and another game or two to make the finals!

          At this point, I came to the realization that the games are controlled to keep them close, certain players obviously get "respect" or "treatment" that others don't (Reggie Included) and the Head of officials dictates how to call the games (what to look for....ie Reggie's leg kick, Yao's screens, Shaq's Elbows etc. etc.).

          So, I know that no lead is safe and I know we can always come back to win.....Gotta Make shots to either stave off the comeback or make the comeback!

          I don't like it, but have come to accept it. I would rather just see the game called by the rules like College B-Ball and if one team blows the other out....tough ****! They kicked their *** and deserve the win. And if we are getting blown out, then we don't deserve to get back in the game, by officials looking the other way as we make our aggressive comeback.

          That quote by the ref....is word for word....I wrote it down immediately after hearing it because I was shocked! I always thought their was bias and a conspiracy, but in reality it was NOT CONSPIRACY, it was CONTROL and the "entertainment value" of having close games.

          We had our chance to comeback in game 4, but couldn't hit a shot to save our playoff lives.

          Water

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

            I think stars get the benefit of calls that could go either way, yes.

            However, if a ref sees a bletent foul, IMO he's going to call it, star or not.

            And something else: you have to be DAMN GOOD to get star calls. You dont come into the league that way. You have to be right on the same wrong call time and time again, before you get the reputation of someone that makes legal plays that other players can't. Its not like these guys just come into the NBA getting star calls, they have to EARN it.

            Thats precisely why you rarely see coaches put a rookie on an established veteran. The veteran knows exactly what he can and cant get away with, and the refs don't know the rookie from adam. That's also why every coach tells his rookies to introduce himself to every new ref he meets.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              It shouldn't be too hard to figure out which officials were deemed unworthy of the playoffs this season...


              I saw an interview with Runnie Nunn on NBATV a week ago or so, and only about 1/2 of the refs work the playoffs, so it won't be to easy to figure who told Jeff that

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                Originally posted by BigMac
                I actually laughed outloud when I read this. He has made this very accusation to the league as well as an accusation that the officials officiate teams differently. What a joke. Almost as big a joke as NBA officiating is as a whole.
                Man, you've got that right. Cuban can be an idiot and a hothead sometimes, but now he can add hypocrite to the list.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                  Originally posted by waterjater
                  My proof and when I got "religion" about the NBA was when I was watching the satellite feed of the Knicks vs. Pacers series the year we made the finals and the feed and sound were left on while the rest of the world watched the time out commercials. The 3 officials were at center court discussing the game situation (as Hue Hollins mentioned they typically due in that interview someone posted about) and the microphones picked up Hue Evans (or Hollins...can't remember which) saying...and I quote "We have the game right where we want it, if they keep missing shots, there is nothing we can do about it" ....you then here on the feed Bill Walton "gasp" at what he just heard....then the sound and feed both cut out!
                  This somewhat stunned me. Unbelievable (almost).

                  I would rather just see the game called by the rules like College B-Ball and if one team blows the other out....tough ****!
                  AMEN. I watch a lot of the NCAA tourney, and I never feel like the refs hose one of the teams. There are blown calls sometimes, but never anywhere approaching the NBA's level of crap.

                  That quote by the ref....is word for word....I wrote it down immediately after hearing it because I was shocked! I always thought their was bias and a conspiracy, but in reality it was NOT CONSPIRACY, it was CONTROL and the "entertainment value" of having close games.
                  What led you to believe it was about keeping games close vs. favoring a team?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                    I still believe the NBA officiating is better than college

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                      Originally posted by Hicks
                      AMEN. I watch a lot of the NCAA tourney, and I never feel like the refs hose one of the teams. There are blown calls sometimes, but never anywhere approaching the NBA's level of crap.
                      hicks, the NCAA tourney games are better because they use out of conference refs. The regular season officiating in the NCAA is the worstand most easily-altered the world. Its not even close.

                      Case in point, IU's game at Wisconsin last year.

                      You have the ATHLETIC DIRECTORS of other schools REFFING games.

                      Northern Iowa's Athletic director was a big 10 official in that game, for god's sake. You don't think that he was considering screwing over Indiana, a team his school was competing with for an at-large bid?

                      and you call NBA refs bad?

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        hicks, the NCAA tourney games are better because they use out of conference refs. The regular season officiating in the NCAA is the worstand most easily-altered the world. Its not even close.

                        Case in point, IU's game at Wisconsin last year.

                        You have the ATHLETIC DIRECTORS of other schools REFFING games.
                        I believe you. But this begs the question, why couldn't the premiere professional basketball league in the history of the world do a better job at making THEIR refs that good? They don't even get as good as the NCAA tourny refs during their own playoffs.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                          Originally posted by Hicks
                          I believe you. But this begs the question, why couldn't the premiere professional basketball league in the history of the world do a better job at making THEIR refs that good? They don't even get as good as the NCAA tourny refs during their own playoffs.
                          There are HALF as many posessions in an NCAA game, Hicks. Teams take TWICE as long to get into plays. It isnt up-and-down like the NBA, and the players arent CLOSE to as athletic. Not to mention that the players aren't getting paid 10 million dollars, and can't say a WORD to officials without being sat down by their coaches.

                          In addition, there is NO home crowd to get on the refs, so whatever call they make is going to be met with resistance from the teams ONLY. Its just a lot easier to control, with no home court advantage.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                            Originally posted by Kstat
                            Here's Tayshawn Prince for an example.

                            In game 1, he comes out of nowhere and does a #31 special on Allen Iverson (sorry but thats what the nickname is), swatting a fast break layup attempt off the glass. The official, who has an impossible angle on the play, calls a goaltend.
                            Just had to bring that play up didn't ya. First of all, if half of the league is not injured Detroit doesn't win the Championship, you get a half a Championship . So no real conspiracy with Pittiful ones winning last year. Second, Lebron was getting massive amounts of calls toward the end of the season this was reported and linked too here and raised eyebrows in the media. Third, Remeber the Larry johnson 4 pointer that cost us a game in NY that officials later said was wrong and a very bad call. Fourth, Michael Jordan had some very close relationships with a couple officials one of which ended up getting him sued in Indianapolis by some gold digger. I've been watching basketball too long not to know that some very fishy things go on. The funny part, Stern is doing an internal investigation on Van Gundys' charges like favoritism doesn't exist.
                            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                              Three (slightly random) ideas:

                              1) Train the next generation of officials from a younger age, so by the time they enter the NBA their mid-20s and pick athletes; people that won't be bothered by the game speed.

                              2) Have a "booth ref". Someone who has access to all the cameras in the house. I'm a believer that players are smarter and mover adaptive than given credit for, and if this made things be called tight (but this is ONLY good if it's CONSISTENT, and NO FREAKING STAR/ROOKIE CALLS), they will adapt and move on, probably a bit like college in that they'll learn to STFU and play, or face consequences, not receive benefits.

                              Someone who can overrule a ****ty call by a ref (if there's time to do so; no stopping play for anything special, but if there's a time out immediately after the play, or it's an end of period/game situation, they should be able to do so. Of course, shots at the buzzer are already covered. Perhaps it would be good for foul calls (or more likely, lack thereof)

                              3) The NBA should become strict about not putting up with whining. In fact, I think it would be good if the bench received a T more easily for yelling and hopping around over what they think is a bad call. And the players and the coaches should be on an almost zero tolerance whining policy. Talking with the refs should only be open dialogue, no complaining. This will only work if the refs abandon any and all bias that they have control over (mainly star/rookie calls).

                              Now none of these 3 ideas were given days on end thought, so don't pick it apart, just understand the gist of what I'm saying, and make your own adjustments; fill in your own blanks.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: JVG snitches on refs, gets $100k fine

                                Originally posted by vapacersfan
                                This is going way off topic, but I cant help but mention it.

                                When I played Rubgy there is a penalty is anyone other then the team captain talked to the refs.

                                I really wish the NBA would adopt this rule.
                                This would go great with my 3rd idea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X