How Bout Dem Wizards!!! (NBA)

[manker]

The only danger I see is the possibilty that you could be hit it the head with a basketball, and would argue it was soccer

I guess you can play soccer with a basketball. So it's possible

[RPerry]

I guess you can play soccer with a basketball. So it's possible

[Busyman]

So contact is allowed for a defender as long as it's a really soft prod with a bent elbow or a forearm. Gawd, now I really think they're a bunch of sissy girls. From what I see there, that's all about a defender maintaining his position and not having to yield to the attacker.

It also says that ... these exceptions above ... .

This infers to me that the rule is that no intentional contact is allowed.

Surely, you're not going to let the exceptions over-ride the rule, are you. That really would be illogical.

Uh yeah just like it's a rule in soccer that you can knock down a player as long as you contact the ball first.

Exceptions to a rule are just that. The exceptions in basketball allow contact.
That contact is actually used (more times) to the advantage of the offensive player.
He puts weight on the defensive players to get his position. He can spin off him, or fade away based on this.

This is intentional contact and it's in the rules. If the player is dislodged it's an offensive foul. Many players "flop" to get the call.

[Busyman]

Do you think it becomes more true if you say it a lot?

What you are quoting means that the ref doesn't have to blow the whistle if it happens, not that the player should strive to do it. If he happens to come into contact with someone when he's trying to block them, 'cos they are moving against him, then that's cool, it doesn't mean that he's supposed reach out and touch someone on purpose.

More: Purposefully breaking the rules can't be part of the rules. You can't break a rule while acting within the rules, that isn't common sense, sorry.

That's funny that you can't grasp that breaking this rule IS part of the rules. What happened is that since NBA.com didn't say, "Players can commit fouls to gain an advantage," you don't buy it.

You son gets hacked going to the basket, falls on his back, misses his foul shots and his team loses because of it.

You, the parent, complains that the other team broke the rules and shouldn't gain because of it....yet they did and you still are dumbfounded.
Hmmmm....the other team broke rules yet somehow played within the rules.....HOW THE FUCK IS THAT?

Book knowledge vs. common sense.

[manker]

Uh yeah just like it's a rule in soccer that you can knock down a player as long as you contact the ball first.

Exceptions to a rule are just that. The exceptions in basketball allow contact.
That contact is actually used (more times) to the advantage of the offensive player.
He puts weight on the defensive players to get his position. He can spin off him, or fade away based on this.

This is intentional contact and it's in the rules. If the player is dislodged it's an offensive foul. Many players "flop" to get the call.

So I take it from the green bit that you agree that the rule in basketball stipulates that no intentional contact is allowed. I am assuming that you don't believe that exceptions should be allowed to take precident over any general rules. 'Cause like I said, that's plain illogical.

Great stuff. Glad I could help.

[Busyman]

So I take it from the green bit that you agree that the rule in basketball stipulates that no intentional contact is allowed. I am assuming that you don't believe that exceptions should be allowed to take precident over any general rules. 'Cause like I said, that's plain illogical.

Great stuff. Glad I could help.

Wrap your head around it....

It seems the exception does allow contact.
It means a foul is not called when this contact is made.
It means it does take precedent over the general rules about contact.

It means you are wrong.

Great stuff. Glad I could help.

[manker]

So you do think that exceptions take precedence over the general rule.

Glad we're clear.


Seems little point in me taking this further, you simply will not listen to reason.

[Busyman]

So you do think that exceptions take precedence over the general rule.

Glad we're clear.


Seems little point in me taking this further, you simply will not listen to reason.

You say intentional contact is not allowed yet.....in this exception it is.

I don't need reason. I have common sense. It's right in front of your face.

You can't be that dense. An exception is a rule.

[manker]

I totally agree, you definitely don't need reason to argue a point.

I notice you hardly ever use it, certainly I've seen little evidence of it in this thread.

[Busyman]

I totally agree, you definitely don't need reason to argue a point.

I notice you hardly ever use it, certainly I've seen little evidence of it in this thread.

Whatever....it's just not your reason.

You threw google rules in front of my face yet when shown a rule that contradicts your point, you say it doesn't.

This is not opinion. It is fact.

Contact is allowed. Wrap your head around it. You are wrong and it the reason you skirt the captainobvious.