lol
In reply to this comment by soulmonarch:
I indulged.

And, since my brains are now dribbling out of my nose, I will go upvote.

I indulged.

And, since my brains are now dribbling out of my nose, I will go upvote.

>> ^curiousity:

@bcglorf
You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.
POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.
PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.
Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.
In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.
VIDEO:
When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.
....
On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.


Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.

I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

@bcglorf

You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.

POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.

PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.

Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.

In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.

VIDEO:

When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.

....

On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.

>> ^Deano:

Makes you wonder about the quality of the MLS. This guy played in the heady heights of the First Division. That's below the Championship which in turn bows to the Premiership.


Actually there's no wondering. I watch the MLS, La Liga, EPL and Bundesliga. The MLS is way below in quality of play of those leagues. It's sort of just an American thing, we've got a lot of speed and power and we know how to build athletes. This game though is a mystery to a lot of American players. Division 1 of the NCAA you'll see some skill, but it's mostly trumped by physical play which carries over into the MLS.

It's not easy to explain, but lets just use a Messi or a Neymar as an example. It's a good chance that they wouldn't even get a chance to shine as kids in the US right now. Because they wouldn't be picked for teams being scrawny and in comparison, slow. Messi is a slow player compared to US players but he's got technical speed...he is fast with the ball GLUED to his foot. Also players like that would look like they're worse than they are because they have NO ONE to play with. It would just be them...being triple teamed and sometimes they'd break free like Neymar in club play or Messi playing for Argentina. But by and large you're playing with a team that you have to play the same level as...so you're not who you were.

An international coach gave me a more simple explanation of what the difference is between the leagues. Look at how a player dribbles the ball, and look at how far they can place it and run onto it while keeping control of it. In the EPL is maybe a couple yards...the more technical players like Suarez would keep it at most a yard from them. La Liga if you watch the most technical players it would be within a foot of them...it's constantly close even when at speed (Messi the ball is either under him or within an inch, he's crazy). The MLS though...the ball is yards away sometimes...and there's still bad and late tackles because players just cannot read the game fast enough.

Bloody hell Hamilton is creepy. His emo laden wording of things, his near god worshipping of her, his bizarre looks towards her.

'Premier exotic dance establishments'? Really, you're going to try to make it sound classy? It's a strip club for fuck's sake.

When she's asked how much she'd been exposed to drugs prior to the whole bunker thing, and says, virtually nothing... 'just pot, meth and cocain'... in who's world is that virtually nothing?

[edit]

Wow, and the beginning of the accompanying article is such dribble:
"There is no facile synthesis of the events that transpired at the Wamego missile silo between October 1 and November 4, 2000. The available information is a viscous solution of truths, half-lies, three-quarter truths, and outright lies, the fractionation of which yields no pure product. "

but--since the speaker continued speaking--didn't he prevent them from exercising Their rights to free speech?

I forgot this was the reason I chimed in. NO. What a silly question. Disrupting an organized event where people have gathered to hear a speaker is not free speech. Holding the event is free speech. Standing up and shouting spontaneously could be considered a form of free speech. But planning ahead to occupy the speaker's and audience's time with a series of interruptions is simply denying the speaker and the audience their right to enjoy/participate in their planned activity.

It's like walking up to a basketball court and kicking the ball onto the roof because the sound of dribbling annoys you, and then calling that playing basketball.

>> ^shagen454:

Haha, all you need to dress like a punk is a messed up jacket with a Crass or Discharge patch across the back. Then you're in!


Vomit dribbling down your front. That's about all you really need.

ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN AMPLY, WELL AND TRULY, COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.

This is utter dribble.

This bullshit mindset of 'It looked like a demolition, therefore it is' is STUPID.

Many things LOOK like other things and are not.

And all this shit about inability of things being able to get that hot is also bullshit.

It's utter, utter shit.

And oooh, scary music... scary... ooooh.

'Most likely'... really? Your most likely hypothesis is that it was a secretly planned and carried out demolition.

With no explosive noise.

Well done.

So let’s just sum it all up…

The United Kingdom has one of the biggest social hammocks on the planet. Universal health care, permanent unemployment, universal retirement payments, and public education? Check. And the yobs are rioting because they don’t have enough entitlements.

Well – clearly the problem is easily solved. The government just needs to seize all wealth so it can be fairly redistributed via socialized programs. At that point the yobs will become happy and line up like good little comrades at the government feeding stations. After all, every government that does this kind of thing has nothing but happy citizens who don’t riot, complain, or live in total poverty and oppression. Look at places like Cuba, North Korea, Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and on and on. No government in history that siezes private capital has EVER just wasted, squandered, and frittered it away. All the social programs that governments run are fair, efficient, and wise stewards of the public trust. I mean, there’s not a socialist government on the PLANET that dribbles out its revenues to the tune of pennies on the dollar. No social system leaves the public with neither freedom OR financial prosperity.

:eyeroll:

Promotes reflect upon the quality of the submission and do not require thanks in return -- they are, in fact, tokens of gratitude within our little realm, are they not ...

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
You win the sifter who has easily given me the most promotes award. The prize is my eternal gratitude ; Oh and, thanks!

In reply to this comment by radx:
*promote Rick Fox's expertise on dribbling balls

You win the sifter who has easily given me the most promotes award. The prize is my eternal gratitude Oh and, thanks!

In reply to this comment by radx:
*promote Rick Fox's expertise on dribbling balls

*promote Rick Fox's expertise on dribbling balls

You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.

And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:

According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.

Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”

Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..





>> ^Mazex:
I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.
There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.
Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.

There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.

Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do