Post-season T report

[BillyMac]

In how many of these situations did the nine nonshooters go behind the division line?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In how many of these situations did the nine nonshooters go behind the division line?

Probably most if not all. And not our problem either way. But then again you have your article to promote.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Probably most if not all. And not our problem either way. But then again you have your article to promote.

You can see right through me. I'm heading out on a national article signing tour in a few weeks. Mention you're a Forum member and I'll give you a 10% discount. I'm already booked on Letterman, Fallon, and Kimmel. I'm going to ask Mark Padgett to write a few jokes for me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In how many of these situations did the nine nonshooters go behind the division line?

I wouldn't know. I know for a fact none of them went inside the 3-point arc or below the free throw line extended, and that none of them committed any unsporting acts during the free throws. That's all I cared about.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In how many of these situations did the nine nonshooters go behind the division line?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I wouldn't know.

Agreed BNR. I couldn't care less......or is it, I could care less?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know for a fact none of them went inside the 3-point arc or below the free throw line extended, and that none of them committed any unsporting acts during the free throws. That's all I cared about.

Originally Posted by grunewar

I couldn't care less.

That's it. No 10% discount for you two when I come to your town on my national article signing tour.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Few things will get you into trouble like, "you should."

Besides, if he saw/heard something, why didn't he assess that technical foul? If they double up, fine.

That was one of the other issues. He arrived late, wanted to be "the guy in charge," but when it came time to T up a kid I was the one who "should" do it. As far as I was concerned he could've called the other kid for a T if he wanted but then he would've had to deal with the fallout with the HC for ringing the kid up nearly a minute after the incident.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One of my partners called one in a girls varsity game. A player called him a "fu*king ass*ole". You should have seen the look on my partner's face.

Did Miss Congeniality spend the rest of the contest watching from her team's bench?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Agreed BNR. I couldn't care less......or is it, I could care less?

It sounds like it really does not matter.

Could care less vs. Couldn't care less

It sounds like the regardless vs. irregardless situations. Both are right but people are convinced one is wrong.

BTW, I agree with you. Never cared as I never tell players where they ultimately go. They go where they want to go. I only stop them from being directly on the lane line.

Peace

Originally Posted by LRZ

What? Intentionally throwing the ball AT (not TO) you? WOW, Stat-Man!

I had that this season. 2nd tech on the kid. Unfortunately I forgot he had one so I didn't get to do the fun ejection signal

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One of my partners called one in a girls varsity game. A player called him a "fu*king ass*ole". You should have seen the look on my partner's face.

Please tell me he called a flagrant technical.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Did Miss Congeniality spend the rest of the contest watching from her team's bench?

Originally Posted by AremRed

Please tell me he called a flagrant technical.

Of course. Was there any other choice? Double secret probation?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It sounds like it really does not matter. .... It sounds like the regardless vs. irregardless situations. Both are right but people are convinced one is wrong.

No, sir. The link you provided says to stick with "couldn't care less." Same with "regardless." The others are indeed wrong.

(A fun one in these parts is "unthaw.")

Originally Posted by Aremred

2nd tech on the kid. Unfortunately I forgot he had one so I didn't get to do the fun ejection signal.

Why not? Is there any reason you can't give a flagrant T after a run-of-the-mill T?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

No, sir. The link you provided says to stick with "couldn't care less." Same with "regardless." The others are indeed wrong.

(A fun one in these parts is "unthaw.")

Irregardless is in many dictionaries. And the link I listed is more about what is accepted by culture than giving more of a reason why one should or should not be used.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Irregardless is in many dictionaries. And the link I listed is more about what is accepted by culture than giving more of a reason why one should or should not be used.

Peace

In most dictionaries, irregardless is listed as a non-standard word. Because irregardless has a prefix, ir, and a suffix, less, that mean the same thing, they actually change the meaning of the word to caring about something or considering something with regard, when the word is used to demonstrate a person's lack of caring or regard. You are correct about the cultural acceptance of irregardless, but that doesn't change the fact that it is technically incorrect, and its use should be avoided in all but casual communications.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

In most dictionaries, irregardless is listed as a non-standard word. Because irregardless has a prefix, ir, and a suffix, less, that mean the same thing, they actually change the meaning of the word to caring about something or considering something with regard, when the word is used to demonstrate a person's lack of caring or regard. You are correct about the cultural acceptance of irregardless, but that doesn't change the fact that it is technically incorrect, and its use should be avoided in all but casual communications.

I have read that it is not technically correct. Again, it really depends on who is saying it and where you are saying that word. Language is fluid and changes all the time with slang and dialect. Nothing new here.

Peace

Originally Posted by bainsey

Why not? Is there any reason you can't give a flagrant T after a run-of-the-mill T?

I hear what you are saying, but it wasn't really deserving of a flagrant T. The kid tossed the ball over his shoulder in my direction -- he didn't gun the ball at me trying to hit me. A stupid play even if unintentional, and no one complained.