Foul without contact?

[MD Longhorn]

Ah... so two pictures from which we can derive exactly nothing. Cool.

[parrot]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ah... so two pictures from which we can derive exactly nothing. Cool.

Picture one shows the relative size of the two players involved for those having trouble believing that the defender would have been knocked down with ball only contact. Force equalling MASS times acceleration and all that.

Second picture was merely to help people picture how the play transpired. Simlilar, but not exact. Sorry I tried to help clarify.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by parrot

Picture one shows the relative size of the two players involved for those having trouble believing that the defender would have been knocked down with ball only contact. Force equalling MASS times acceleration and all that.

Second picture was merely to help people picture how the play transpired. Simlilar, but not exact. Sorry I tried to help clarify.

A still picture doesn't show much of anything when you're trying to establish who fouled who or if there was even a foul at all. All it can do is establish that there was contact at that very moment....which is far from enough to determine fault.

[parrot]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A still picture doesn't show much of anything when you're trying to establish who fouled who or if there was even a foul at all. All it can do is establish that there was contact at that very moment....which is far from enough to determine fault.

I understand that. That was not my intent. The picture I posted isn't even of the play in question. It's a similar play that involved the same defender. I just thought it might help people who were having trouble visualizing how the play went down. Forget I posted it I guess.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by parrot

I understand that. That was not my intent. The picture I posted isn't even of the play in question. It's a similar play that involved the same defender. I just thought it might help people who were having trouble visualizing how the play went down. Forget I posted it I guess.

It's OK parrot...there are some of us who understood what you were trying to do with the two pictures, and aren't total a$$hats about it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It's OK parrot...there are some of us who understood what you were trying to do with the two pictures, and aren't total a$$hats about it.

I just snickered out loud.

[parrot]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It's OK parrot...there are some of us who understood what you were trying to do with the two pictures, and aren't total a$$hats about it.

I may, or may not, have had that exact word in one of my responses and chose to delete it, or not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by parrot

I may, or may not, have had that exact word in one of my responses and chose to delete it, or not.

Sometimes discretion is best when you're new. Probably not fair, but....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It's OK parrot...there are some of us who understood what you were trying to do with the two pictures, and aren't total a$$hats about it.

So you are an "whatever lame name you called everyone" because we think a still picture is a silly example to illustrate how someone is or is not fouled?

Wow, I will remember next time to bring a camera to games and show to coaches, "See, that is a foul!"

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you are an "whatever lame name you called everyone" because we think a still picture is a silly example to illustrate how someone is or is not fouled?

Wow, I will remember next time to bring a camera to games and show to coaches, "See, that is a foul!"

Peace

No, it's because he was relatively clear that he wasn't trying to prove anything with the pictures except to show two things:

1. The relative size of the players.
2. The way a ball could be used as a means of moving another player.

That's it. To belittle the pictures as a lack of proof of a foul (that didn't even occur on the plays he showed) is similar to complaining that he hasn't yet proven that Christian Laettner traveled on that last shot against Kentucky.

[parrot]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you are an "whatever lame name you called everyone" because we think a still picture is a silly example to illustrate how someone is or is not fouled?

Wow, I will remember next time to bring a camera to games and show to coaches, "See, that is a foul!"

Peace

That would be a great point if I had ever suggested that that picture - OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAY BTW, FOR THE THIRD TIME - illustrated "how someone is or is not fouled". I was merely trying to offer a picture of a similar scenario to help people visualize how the play unfolded.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you are an "whatever lame name you called everyone" because we think a still picture is a silly example to illustrate how someone is or is not fouled?

Wow, I will remember next time to bring a camera to games and show to coaches, "See, that is a foul!"

Peace

First, a$$hat is most certainly not a "lame name".

Second, I did not call "everyone" an a$$hat. Just the 3 or 4 of you who obviously had problems reading what parrot said when he posted those pictures (and it appears are still having the same reading problems).

Third, parrot specifically said that the pictures were NOT of the play he was originally posting about, so of course they were not examples of whether someone was fouled or not.

Fourth, you have made it abundantly clear over the years here that no one's opinion of you matters to you...so why would you even respond to a post where I (or anyone) call you an a$$hat. After all, it doesn't matter to you...I know, I know...you will be back along shortly to tell me why I am wrong and all that.

Peace.