I wasn't sure who it was in the picture you sent me...

And you might be correct because I thought Donaghy made bets mostly through mob connection. I do not think the underworld uses proposition bets nor would they wager their bets at the legal casinos.

I see. My man didn't grow up in Keizer, he's from further down the valley. Think Sequoias. Old Growth. None of that dinky cement post stuff.

<font size = font size>:D</font size>

Who are you and please summarize your basketball background? Thanks.

Good luck with that.

In case you didn't notice, the NBA official called a block. Maybe it wasn't for the same reason, but we arrived at the same conclusion. Just like little cars don't run up under diesal trucks, little guys don't run up under big guys. Reason, diesal truck won't see you until it's too late, much the same for a bigger player, except the damage is greater towards the bigger player. Yes, that's called protecting the players.

I know you know nothing about protecting players because it doesn't say so in the book. In my games, I'm not having it. Notice how Steve didn't try to do that move anymore. Message sent. The NBA which I have studied, doesn't approach the game the way NFHS does. One reason is they can't. Their players are so much bigger.

The play could have been a foul. Just from the angle that we were shown, I do not think it is an automatic. All I am really saying, I understand why this was not called. Because of our individual judgment and experience, we can always debate how this was a foul and how it was not a foul.

I have talked about this NCI (No call incorrect) before on this site. And I said that at the college level, they seemed to want a call more often than just passing on this play. Of course there are some philosopy differences, but Hank Nichols is putting on the tape every year several examples where he feels that officials are not making a call when they clearly should. I was at a camp where several D1 officials were clinicians and one of the officials was hanging around from the NBA and this aspect was talked about extensively.

I am not saying you are wrong, I think we are looking at this differently.

Peace

Well, that certainly hurts my feelings.....:(

To parahrase SNL......

"Needs more rebar".......:mad:

I have a fever, and the only prescription is...more rebar! Hmm... :confused:

In your case, wouldn't a paperclip do the trick?

Actually, I was kidding.

Geeze, do I have to put a smilie on everything? You're as bad as Dan. No wonder Juulie and I get sooooooo frustrated.

Will this help?

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Word...umor_setup.gif

I'm not arguing whether the play is right or wrong. I want everyone to discuss their way of processing this play and other plays. I feel that the way we process plays sometimes need to be revised. Saying, "I'm not calling such and such because A1 did this or did that and that is a stupid play" is not a justifiable answer in why we call or no call plays. I'm not saying I haven't done it because I have but I am working on getting that out of my processing.



Old School,

I believe it is great that you came to the same conclusion as most people with the Duncan,Nash block/charge play, but as I have written above the way you process the play, in accordance with the NBA, is wrong. They don't process plays like that. They determine (on this particular play) if the play originates in the LDB (which it did), once they determine that, they decide whether the defensive player is in position and perpendicular to the player's path before the shooting motion of the offensive player starts (it was close). If he was... offensive foul, if he wasn't.... block, if it's a tie.... block. I believe it was a tie, therefore you had the block call.

Everybody has different ways of processing plays, and with your way it makes it sound like this play and any other play similar to this would be a block. What if Nash gets there a half second earlier. Are you still going to call a block because that kind of play might cause injury? I'm not being condescending like some people are with you. I am asking a legitimate question and would like and respect a legitimate answer.

Watching a lot of NBA games, and even charting things from a spectator's view (which is the only one any of us on this forum can have) isn't the same as "studying". To really understand the NBA, you'd have to actually hear from them why and why not they call and don't call things.

The reasons they don't do things the same as the NFHS have little or nothing to do with the sizes of the players, and especially not with "protectiing" the big players or little players. The move that "Steve" didn't do again was illegal not because it "threatened" the big player, but because he didn't establish his position legally. The definition of legal position is different in the NBA and the NFHS, but the principle of legal position is the same -- and it isn't based on who's going to get hurt.

Yeah, that would just be a stupid way of deciding a call. Good thing officials don't do that, huh.