[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

if the arguement makes sense, or if the shoe fits, why not support it.

You're talking to a man who changed political ideologies because the logic didn't work with the one I grew up with. I'm more than willing to entertain new ideas. The problem is, your logic doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Old School

Now, if you can no longer debate the issue, perhaps you should quit talking, because you only make yourself look bad when you try to kill the messenger. IOWs, it's immature, you know, the Mr.Rogers comment, doesn't fit.

Actually, it did fit and it was immature. I can accept that. It fit because your "statistics" were make believe, just like the land in Mr. Rogers' back yard.

Originally Posted by Old School

I am the type of guy who studies the game. You are the type of guy who studies the rules.

You have no idea whether I study the game or not. Your only evidence for this is that I disagree with your interpretation of how various rules should be. Frankly, the evidence is flimsy.

Originally Posted by Old School

You, like most of the others on this forum have mastered the rules, and therefore doesn't want to see them change because you understand it so well. It is a classic denial symdrome.

No, we don't want to see this change because it wouldn't make the game better. The fact that we disagree with you doesn't mean what you think it does.

Originally Posted by Old School

If, after viewing the video, you don't think nothing needs to change, you are in denial. Offensive player should have known better, right?.

There's risk in this play on both sides, quite frankly. Odds are about even on which player will get hurt. The fact is, the offensive player needs to consider that the guy who's close to being in position could easily get into position before he takes off. Oddly enough, 99% of the time they adjust and there's no contact. Amazing.

Originally Posted by Old School

Well, being a student of the game, I can see the fallacy in the rule.

This is that high horse I was talking about. How's the air?

Originally Posted by Old School

When the player started his drive to the bucket, there was no one there, being the game is on the line, he's got to make that shot and his focus is now on putting the ball in the hoop. All of a sudden a defensive player runs underneath him.

So, you're saying the defensive player just appeared out of thin air? Was he hiding behind the paint lines or something? Maybe he was using the new cloaking device. I'm pretty sure we could use rule 2-3 to call a violation or technical foul for using witch craft. My point is there was enough information for him to know this defender was there. Stop and take a jump shot. Players do it all the time.

Originally Posted by Old School

When you have athlete's that can jump from the F/T line and hang all the way to the basket. That type of athlete is going to throw a monkey wrench into your fundamentally sound rules. The rules weren't written when athlete's could do that.

And if the player is in the air from the free throw line, the defender has less time to get into LGP. It's pretty simple, frankly.

Originally Posted by Old School

We also don't need to do a drastic overhaul of the rules either, just tweak a few things here and there.

What you're proposing (adding time and distance to the block-charge decision) is a drastic overhaul. Requiring LGP two steps before take-off will virtually illiminate PC calls, and most games will be come layup drills.