Uncalled Cheap Shots

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

That's exactly my point. There's so much not shown on the video, yet everyone with a whistle knows EXACTLY what they would have done in the context of the game overall. Frankly, it's just delusional.

I'm not saying it's unlikely that, with different officials on the floor, #34 wouldn't have been in a position to commit foul #5. I'm merely saying it's foolish to sit here and say "Well, this is absolutely what should have happened" when we don't have 2% out of 100% of what happened in the game.

Can we guess what happened? Yes.

Can we assume what happened? Certainly.

Can we say for certainty what happened, and therefore say what should have happened in the overall context of the game? No, I don't believe we can.

But, if it makes you feel better to say you would have fouled his a$$ out, go for it.

You have done this before, but you are missing the point again. All I said was I am sure there were other plays out there that would have produced a possibility for fouls. I did not say or even advocate that I would have definitely fouled the kid out before many of these plays. Just saying that not all fouls have to be hard or borderline flagrant/intentional to get a player out of the game. That is really all I am suggesting and since we do not see other situations that would have been obvious as to interaction with opponents, FT lineups and other aspects where a player like this would have revealed more things to make judgments on his overall behavior.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have done this before, but you are missing the point again. All I said was I am sure there were other plays out there that would have produced a possibility for fouls. I did not say or even advocate that I would have definitely fouled the kid out before many of these plays.

I hear what you're saying. The majority of the post you just quoted wasn't directed at you specifically.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I hear what you're saying. The majority of the post you just quoted wasn't directed at you specifically.

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

The reality is that you have focused on me and what I have said to you, but others see you in a similar light. And this is why many are commenting on your words now.

And there is a huge difference between you and I and I am not talking about years of experience. I am not offended by a single word you said to me in this discussion.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

but others see you in a similar light. And this is why many are commenting on your words now.

It's also why some are not commenting on those same words.

[dsqrddgd909]

Finally at a wireless spot that won't block youtube.

1. Intent
2. Common
3. Flagrant? Could also make case for intentional
4. Intentional
5. Flagrant
6. Common