The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2008, 04:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 285
Interesting column about the play

At a Duke site of all places. Absolutely rips the crew. The announcing crew.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24374
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 12, 2008, 06:14pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbduke
At a Duke site of all places. Absolutely rips the crew. The announcing crew.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24374
I have no idea whether I could ever agree with what the author was eventually going to say. I gave up trying to read it after the first few sentences. What a pretentious little prick.

Typical Dookie.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 12:38am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
I have no idea whether I could ever agree with what the author was eventually going to say. I gave up trying to read it after the first few sentences. What a pretentious little prick.

Typical Dookie.
I forced myself. Pretentious is right. Why write clearly when trying to sound intelligent and witty is so much more fun (for the writer)? He is much clearer in these paragraphs, though, and is right on the money:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretentious Dookie
There is a widely-accepted code among coaches and officials that says that lines aren’t gray. In other words, officials have some discretion to pass on certain calls in certain situations, such as the marginal travel in the junior varsity contest, the slight bump on the LeBron dunk, the common rather than intentional foul in the calm blow-out. Lines, on the other hand, are lines. Even a toenail on the three-point arc, if seen, means a two-point try, no exceptions. And the same thing goes for the sidelines, baselines, the free-throw lines, and the division line (the only possible exceptions are lane lines on free throws, but that’s a discussion for another time). Out-of-bounds is out-of-bounds. One corollary of this code is that if a player is bumped, then, despite reasonable efforts to stay in, goes out of bounds, it has to be a foul. With no o.o.b., there need be no foul. And, obviously, if the official does not have a good view of the line in question(or can feign a poor look), a foul need not be called (though it does force the official to explain to the supervisor why he was out of position to referee the sideline), and o.o.b. MUST not be called.

Those who have seen the same regular-definition replays that I have may be screaming by now, “But it’s not clear he was o.o.b, in which case the foul shouldn’t have been called!” To that quite reasonable position I have two responses: first, it is indeed not clear on video replay, but the official, whatever the criticisms, was exactly where he was supposed to be on the play, which is to say he had a perfect angle for judging o.o.b. So it’s tough for me to definitively say he was wrong given our respective looks at the play. The second, and of greater meta-import, is that it wasn’t clear to the commentators either, yet they did exactly zero real work to try to help clear up the question. There was ample time in the minute or so between the final foul and Wallace’s first free throw for any one of them to ask the producer, “Can we get a clear shot of the sideline there?” But none did. Then, when they finally defaulted into that angle, there was no one calling for a freeze-frame (where was Vitale!).
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 06:18am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
I forced myself. Pretentious is right. Why write clearly when trying to sound intelligent and witty is so much more fun (for the writer)? He is much clearer in these paragraphs, though, and is right on the money:
Those observations I agree with. I just couldn't get through the pretentious little prick's preamble to actually read them. Got no time for writers that feel the need to use several paragraphs to show everybody how much smarter they are than their readers before they get to what they want to say.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 01:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Those observations I agree with. I just couldn't get through the pretentious little prick's preamble to actually read them. Got no time for writers that feel the need to use several paragraphs to show everybody how much smarter they are than their readers before they get to what they want to say.
Is it even possible, in your mind, that the writer of the column wasn't trying to "prove how much smarter" he/she is than any of the readers, but instead was trying to give an introduction to some important ideas related to the coverage of the play?

It's beyond clear that the quality of the introduction is questionable, but the ideas in the beginning of the column certainly seemed relevant to the story as the writer tried to tell it.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 01:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbduke
Is it even possible, in your mind, that the writer of the column wasn't trying to "prove how much smarter" he/she is than any of the readers, but instead was trying to give an introduction to some important ideas related to the coverage of the play?

It's beyond clear that the quality of the introduction is questionable, but the ideas in the beginning of the column certainly seemed relevant to the story as the writer tried to tell it.

I'll go out on a limb here and say it was poorly written. Pompous, pretentious, rambling come to mind regarding the 'intro'. I went back and skipped the first 1000 words and it was still overwritten. More is not better.

He might have good points buried somewhere in the fluff.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 02:38pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbduke
Is it even possible, in your mind, that the writer of the column wasn't trying to "prove how much smarter" he/she is than any of the readers, but instead was trying to give an introduction to some important ideas related to the coverage of the play?

It's beyond clear that the quality of the introduction is questionable, but the ideas in the beginning of the column certainly seemed relevant to the story as the writer tried to tell it.
In my mind, the author of the story was just another pretentious prick. His preamble was ample proof of that. Hopefully, he'll grow out of it. Being a Dookie though, the odds are against it.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 13, 2008, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Boston area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
In my mind, the author of the story was just another pretentious prick. His preamble was ample proof of that. Hopefully, he'll grow out of it. Being a Dookie though, the odds are against it.
He's also an official:" The Play Caller is a nine-year high school and college basketball official who happens to be a Duke fan."
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2008, 03:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
In my mind, the author of the story was just another pretentious prick. His preamble was ample proof of that. Hopefully, he'll grow out of it. Being a Dookie though, the odds are against it.
Sounds like you found exactly what you were looking for in the piece. Funny. A perfect example of the confirmation bias he wrote about.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 14, 2008, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
In my mind, the author of the story was just another pretentious prick. His preamble was ample proof of that. Hopefully, he'll grow out of it. Being a Dookie though, the odds are against it.
JB, don't pay the old fossil any mind. Back in the 1500s none of the commoners went to university, he's just frustrated he could only read 20% of the words. I wouldn't expect JR to keep up with a university-educated writer.

There, there. (pats little JR on the head)


Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Georgetown vs West Virginia Jerrylh Basketball 13 Wed Jan 30, 2008 07:09am
Ohio State & Georgetown All_Heart Basketball 45 Sun Jun 03, 2007 05:36am
Georgetown/UNC tomegun Basketball 4 Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:11pm
BC / Nova All_Heart Basketball 14 Sat Mar 25, 2006 05:20pm
Virginia-Georgetown TGR Basketball 6 Mon Mar 20, 2000 09:30am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1