Yep, precisely my intention. It's my considered opinion that a tongue-in-cheek Videosift comment intended to highlight the silliness of self-defeating religious impulses is the moral equivalent of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish funeral pickets.>> ^Asmo:
[...] You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?

>> ^aurens:

Eh, I disrespectfully disagree.>> ^Asmo:
I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.



Yeah, because intolerance of someone who doesn't share your belief system (or lack thereof) is awesome. /eyeroll

You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

"Well, let's see, if you're going 800mph, you have to cut that in half because you're going way faster than a mile a minute..."


BAZZINGA!

Eh, I disrespectfully disagree.>> ^Asmo:
I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.

>> ^aurens:

"He knows that he has only minutes to climb into his life raft before the freezing ocean kills him. 'I stopped everything; I started praying. I said, God, I need some help.'"
Well, now he has even less time to make it into his life raft.


I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.

There aren't 500 channels on free-to-air in Australia, and that one was on channel 9 (from the logo)

I'd be 99.5% sure they bought it from the U.S. though (looked it up, it was discovery channel).
In reply to this comment by nock:
Really? There's a show called "When Pilots Eject"?

500 channels and nothing's on.

Really? There's a show called "When Pilots Eject"?

500 channels and nothing's on.

First off, thanks so much for the promote!
In the link to the site I found the video on the page comments mainly focus on the Air Force base... heheh

>> ^Sarzy:

Wait, wait... did I hear that right? The base is called the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base?
Best base name ever.

I'd never thought about the air resistance of ejecting in a jet fighter. I mean it's so obvious when you think about but man, that's incredible

Your video, What Happens When You Eject Out Of A Jet At 800 MPH, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^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.


No worries, I was being bullheaded while stupidly failing to re-watch the video and confirm what I remembered was really what happened. You should have found my comments baffling and crazed.

I agree with refs having discretion in calling a game loose or tight. I even agree with refs recognizing when they've made a bad call and being tougher on the team that benefited from that for another call later just to keep the calls more even. Reffing is terrifically tough, requiring you to do a job were you will make all manner of mistakes or misses and just need to make the right balance of it all to keep things fair and controlled.

My issue is more with the nature of the rule itself. A rule that makes eye contact with your opponent immediately after dunking on them a potentially game ejecting foul seems way out of proportion.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^curiousity:

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

Are you trolling me?


?

Do you not agree and understand that contact between players is called as a defensive foul unless the defensive player's feet are planted? That is, if both players are in the air and there is contact, it is ALWAYS a defensive foul. The only possible exception being if the offensive player throws a punch or something else to warrant a flagrant call. Even then though, some very hard elbows and knees in that situation still get called against the defender.

Do you really argue any of that? If you do, then yes I do question if you've ever actually played in a competitive game with actual referees.

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


Are you trolling me?