Reporter defends officials
 

From this morning's Oregonian newspaper:

Ugly loss is no excuse for bad fan behavior
by John Canzano, The Oregonian
Monday April 20, 2009

The Trail Blazers were awful Saturday night. The Houston Rockets were not. And so the fans at the Rose Garden watching Game1 of this NBA playoff series did what fans sometimes do.

They booed the officials.

Then they chanted, "These refs suck!"

Call Saturday's Game1 loss abysmal, be frustrated, but know that the worst part of the evening was provided by Blazers fans who went small time in a big moment. And that shouldn't happen again.

This issue is bigger than basketball.

It's about how Portland is perceived across the nation. And since we live here, it's about you and me.

The Blazers didn't move on offense. They didn't match Houston's defensive intensity. Portland let Aaron Brooks get loose, looked surprised to be in a big-time game, and failed to effectively defend Yao Ming.

It was a breakdown on the basketball end by the Blazers, and it's understandable that you'd be frustrated. But crude chants, with NBA commissioner David Stern in attendance no less, re-enforce the worst things a TV audience can think about you.

You fight that little-brother syndrome when it comes to Seattle and Los Angeles. And maybe that's why making the playoffs with back-to-back whippings of the Lakers and with Mr.Sonic as your coach felt so good. And while I received more than 1,200 e-mails about Saturday's terrible performance, too many of them blamed the loss on the officials.

The officials didn't miss 10 of 11 three-point attempts. The officials didn't allow Yao to shoot 9 for 9 from the field. The officials didn't fail to compete.

The Blazers did those things.

The boos should have been for them, no?

My Favorite Line.....
 

I have relatives in Philadelphia and have been to many a game there......

Nuf sed.

Isn't 'Jail Blazers' one of the terms used to describe the team? Or wasn't it in the past? Maybe this reporter heard Colin Cowherd on the radio the other day.

Yes, Jail Blazers was the term that used to describe the team of the past. It did in fact fit with the players on their roster. We had Bonzi Wells, Shawn Kemp, Darius Miles, Rasheed Wallace, J. R. Rider...do I need to keep going?

Luckily, management shipped out all of those guys (Darius Miles being the last) and now they not only have quality players but more importantly, quality people.

Could the mods be a little more stringent in monitoring fair use? Lots of things get posted here in their entirety, rather than just summarizing and linking.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but my brother is a newspaper reporter who was just given a mandatory two-week furlough this year, so I'm pretty sensitive on this issue.

You do know that newspapers are dying out right? They have been for nearly a decade or more. We cannot help when people make bad career choices. Maybe Obama could help him out, I hear that he is giving away lots of money right now.

The Seattle paper just quit the print edition a few weeks ago.

BTW, the guy should be happy to still have a job rather than a little extra unpaid vacation time. How sensitive can you get? :confused: I am sure that there are plenty of people that would trade places and take a furlough or even a pay cut to ensure they can still feed their families, or have a roof over their head.

As much as I agree with everything you said, I also agree with jbduke. His complaint is not so much about his brothers job situation as it is about how postings here (that are complete pastes of articles published elsewhere) are actually stealing the work of others...some of which who are losing their jobs or getting pay cuts. By pasting the entire article, it takes from the author's chance to earn payment for his work. Not much different than someone showing up on your jobsite and taking some of the materials.

I assume you are urging a post of the link to the story. If that is the case, then spell it out. Quoting an excerpt and providing the link for the rest of the story....is that incorrect as well?

I won't post the article....
 

Just a FYI, the 27 April issue of Sports Illustrated has an interesting article entitled, The Hardest Call of All. NBA - So, which is it, Block, Charge, or No Call?

If you get a chance, it's a good read with some interesting comments from coaches, players, and the NBA Director of Officials.....and they all agree, "it can be an incredibly difficult call."

They even discuss the hardest drivers to the hoop and those most likely to stand and take a hit.....

Would Like to Read It Again ???
 

I already read my copy, and recycled it, so I can't go back and check, but wasn't there a statement, or two, in the article about a defender being "set"? I just assumed the NBA rule was not the same as the NFHS rule and didn't give it a second thought, but now I'm starting to wonder. For those of you who still have the issue, did the writer state that the defender had to be "set", and is this the correct rule in the NBA?

From the Mythbusters: A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he or she has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards or sideways to maintain a legal guarding position and may even have one or both feet off the playing court when contact occurs.

Camron - please explain how pasting an article that is posted on a newspaper's website for free "takes from the author's chance to earn payment for his work". The article is out there for anyone to read. It is not at all the same as "someone showing up on your jobsite and taking some of the materials". It would be that only if the article was stolen and distributed prior to publication. But distributing something that is free and accessible to anyone is quite different from what you described, I think. It's not like this website (or me) is selling it and making a profit from it. I don't see how it's any different than posting a link, as long as you give proper credit (which I always do).

Actually, the newspaper's website IS selling it and making a profit from it. It is just that the people paying for it on your behalf are the advertisers.

Publishers track the number of times people click on the headlines/summaries to read articles. The publishers use those stats to price their advertising space. Perhaps they also use it to see who's articles are the most read and, by that measure, the most valuable...perhaps being used to decide who to keep and who to let go. When anyone takes such an article from such a site and posts it elsewhere, they author doesn't get "credit" for the number of people who've read it....and who've seen the adverts that paid for it. If content gets copied to other sites too much, the original source makes no money from their advertisers and goes under and those that simply copied it are still around and copy from somewhere else.

On the other hand, a short summary and a link is the perfect solution. It let's people know what the story is and those that are interested can click through to the original site. Still free, and the author gets appropriate credit.

This is monumentally stupid. First, newspapers were relatively stable for a long time and only in the past few years have we started to hear of major market dailies suspending publication. Second, without newspapers, the Internet would have very little news since Internet news sites do very little reporting and generally rely on the pencil press to do the legwork. Finally, becoming a reporter is not necessary a "bad career choice;" it's actually a pretty good career choice, but we are now in an era when the way people get their news has changed, only time will tell whether the public is willing to support newsgathering, or prefers news blogging that is low on fact and high on emotion.