Had to replace original video with similar video as original was removed for showing "dangerous" actions. The actions are the same (find rfid chip, place screwdriver or nail on top, hit with hammer.)

>> ^bcglorf:

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.


Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.

Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.

@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.

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...


Are you trolling me?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^curiousity:
>> ^bcglorf:

They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.

If there's contact on the players body though it's still a foul. Sure, in practice the refs will let a lot of things slide, especially by the basket. That's exactly my point though, after letting one infraction slide, they go ahead and call an even less significant one.


Body contact by itself does not necessitate a foul. If the ball is "free" (i.e. not actively possessed by a player), then players from both teams are allow to pursue the ball. In fact, the offensive player runs into the defensive player so it is the offensive player that causes the contact while the defensive player is just seeking to intercept the pass while having a superior position (and if he could have jumped higher and gained possession, it might have been a foul on the offense player if the offense player tried to take the ball away from him.) It was a good no-call by the ref.

>> ^bcglorf:


They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.


The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.

Nice editing of an excellent series.

>> ^Kofi:

@bareboards2 Just because it has survived evolution does not mean that it serves an evolutionary purpose.

I wanted to second this statement. If a trait is useful to a species for its set of circumstances and surroundings, that trait should survive or even thrive via the evolution process. One can not reverse this relationship and say that because a trait survived the evolution process, it is useful. That completely ignores the circumstances and surroundings which in themselves define which are advantageous traits or traits that lessen the chance of survival. Of course, there might be some traits that don't make a different (again defined by the specific species' set of circumstances and surroundings.)

My parents have seen this guy talk a couple of times and much of it is utter shit, but they are growing more and more fundamentalist Christian as they get older. A year or so ago when I was home, my dad actually said that he thought the part of the reason that the US economic crisis was so bad was because of all the abortions that had happened... less people to raise "demand." I was stunned into complete silence and then choose to not respond at all as one sometimes has to do with relatives at holiday time.

I had watched this earlier on reddit.

An interesting article about the historical cultural difference between genders was referenced on reddit and I found it a very good read:
Is There Anything Good About Men?

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^curiousity:
It's easy to see these two like each other and it is a pleasure to watch them interact.

I dunno I got the exact opposite impression from the interview, it looked really tense, and that last handshake seemed like they were squeezing eachother's hands like the father of a teenage daughter would squeeze the hand of her prom date.


I guess I'm bringing in the other times that I've seen them interact. They like to give each other a hard time, but it is obvious that they like each other (over the entire course of interactions I've seen between them.)

It's easy to see these two like each other and it is a pleasure to watch them interact.