I have to say he's wrong on a number of points.

For one, sports rules are arbitrary. In any competitive game, the only purpose of the rules is to provide an agreed upon environment in which people can compete, in order to make scores easy to tally. For example, imagine basketball with no rules, a player takes a ball from one end of a court to another without dribbling and shoots and makes it. How many points should that be worth? How about using a ladder to make the basket, or any one of the limitless number of other ways a person might come up with on the fly while playing? By having all the competitors agree to a set of rules, regardless of what those rules are, it's possible to referee the game and determine a winner. You can take any game, make arbitrary changes to the rules, and all you've done is create a different game. From chess, to poker, golf, football, curling, or anything else, the only difference is the rule set. Take volleyball, make a few a tweaks, and you have sepak takraw. People might find one rule set more aesthetically pleasing to watch or fun to compete in than another, but that is completely subjective. There are an infinite number of possible rule sets, and if there were infinite people you could find somebody to enjoy each one of them.

Also, it's more than the essential nature of a thing that matters. Nonessential parts can have effects on the essential ones. The golf cart thing is the perfect example. Walking may not be an essential part of the game, but the fatigue it produces has an effect on swinging the club which is an essential part. It's easy to imagine a person unable to walk, but still able to swing a club with force an accuracy. So being disabled does not disadvantage this person on the essential parts of the game. This person spends most of his time on a golf cart, exerting little energy, and shaded from the sun. The other players do a lot of walking, getting tired, sunburned, sweat in their eyes, etc. That could definitely have an effect on the essence of the game.

So the question is then, which is more important: letting golf be defined as having the particular set of rules that it currently has, or being fair by letting the disabled play?
If it makes sense that the court can redefine the rules of golf so that a disabled person can use a cart and it still be called "golf", then surely it makes sense to still call it golf after you change the rules so that everybody can use a cart. And if the court has the power to do the former, it has the power to do the latter. And the court clearly chose the virtue of fairness over the "sanctity" of the rule set. And, since letting only one person use a cart would still be unfair, just to different people, the only sensible course of action is let everybody use one.

When I saw this starting to pop up on Facebook I was entirely cynical, and thought it was going to be some sort of rubbish.

But this has real merit, and it's an achievable goal.

You can think 'Hey, this isn't the most important thing going on'... but really, it's pretty bloody horrendous, and why can't you pitch in to help with something? All eggs don't have to be in one basket.

So while you think there's something more important that affects you and demands your and your government's time, this is something that demands an incredibly TINY amount of time/money compared to other things and yet will have a pretty huge and positive outcome.

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Dan_Mangan:Basket

We are young
We have years ahead maybe
We might fall in love
Fall apart
Fall apart
Before it ends
Well we should try to start

So I'll go but I'm telling you I don't wanna go
Could be stuck here and happy

So there's a puzzle I work on endlessly
And I've got the sides and all the corners
But there's a space
Yeah there's a space
Lost some pieces I can't replace

So I'll be but I'm telling you I don't wanna be
Just a wasted puzzle piece

We are old
And our son took the dog away
And fair enough, guess we're tired all the time
All the time
And you know dogs they need ample time outside

So I'll stay but I'm telling you I don't, I don't wanna stay
So I'll brace myself against the wall and hope to God that I don't fall
My bones are worn, my hip won't hold
I used to be so young, how did I get so old?
Won't you take my cane and hold my hand
You're holding onto all I have
Just a basket full of memories
And I am losing more each day it seems
But if I can make it to the street
I'll steal a car or a bike whatever there is to steal
And it might get cold I just don't care
I'm going 'til I'm getting there
I'll ride my steed all through this town
'Til I have looked and I have found
Your peaceful memory
Won't you return to me?
Won't you return to me?

It works better if you hang a large rock above them instead of the laundry basket.

So... just to clarify, if he had tossed it in the air at the basket, but it wasn't blocked or tipped, and didn't actually come in contact with rim or backboard, it would have been travelling.

Thank you! My knowledge of the rule of basket ball is (evidently) minimal

The Mighty Morphin' Power Wiki says

In clarifications:

It is impossible to travel while dribbling. The height of the dribble or number of steps taken per dribble is irrelevant.

A player who attempts a field goal may not be the first to touch the ball if it fails to touch the backboard, basket ring or another player.

He was dribbling to the end, technically tried to score a field goal, it hit the backboard, he dunked.

Travelling mostly has to do with while you're holding the ball, not dribbling.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^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.


You've never played ball before then, have you.

When the offensive player has the ball, any contact is a foul on the defensive player unless the defender has both feet planted on the ground before the offensive player left his own feet. Since both players are jumping and the offensive player is still holding the ball when there is contact there isn't any question what so ever on the call. It's just a call refs often leave alone if the contact is light and doesn't interfere with the shot. That's why on a dunk they'll allow some body contact with no call, but on a 3 point attempt they'll call even a feather touch on the shoe.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

No, this is all wrong. It's stuff like "Hey Boo-boo!" and "Pic-a-nic basket". Dunno what this shit is.

It seems as though just about everything going on in israel right now stinks to high heaven, the rest of the world know that laws are being broken round the clock down there, human rights trampled on, and yet everyone ignores it. I wonder if people would have been so down on iraq and iran if they had as strong ties with the powers in the west?

I know at least a few israelis online who aren't happy with the situation either, so i know there's good eggs in the basket.

>> ^shagen454:

I think she had another baby up there waiting to grab ahold.
>> ^ant:
Wait, she has a basket under her skirt?



QUAIIDD

Wait, she has a basket under her skirt?