How Bout Dem Wizards!!! (NBA)

[manker]

Mmmmk

There is no distinction between intentional and unintentional. Too much contact results in a foul. Pretty simple.

A flagrant foul is the closest to what you are talking about.

I don't know where you're coming from. If you break the rules on purpose then you're cheating.

What has the penalty award to the opposition got to do with anything.


Sometimes the cheat gets away with it and the offence goes unpunished - does this mean that the player is no longer a cheat. Of course not, it just means that he got away with it. The penalising of a cheat is irrelevant, it is knowingly commiting an offence against the rules which is important.

[Busyman]

I don't know where you're coming from. If you break the rules on purpose then you're cheating.

What has the penalty award to the opposition got to do with anything.


Sometimes the cheat gets away with it and the offence goes unpunished - does this mean that the player is no longer a cheat. Of course not, it just means that he got away with it. The penalising of a cheat is irrelevant, it is knowingly commiting an offence against the rules which is important.

As I said, if I go up to block a shot, there is no distinction if I went for the other players arm or the ball....yet I may hit his arm.

Soccer has the same stuff in it. Fellas are kicked in shins and whatnot ALL the time...but most of the time it is deemed "not a penalty because it was legitimate play on the ball."

Yet in the rules, and this is sans the shoulder to shoulder contact, the ball must be contacted first. This is pervasive in soccer.

[manker]

As I said, if I go up to block a shot, there is no distinction if I went for the other players arm or the ball....yet I may hit his arm.

Soccer has the same stuff in it. Fellas are kicked in shins and whatnot ALL the time...but most of the time it is deemed "not a penalty because it was legitimate play on the ball."

Yet in the rules, and this is sans the shoulder to shoulder contact, the ball must be contacted first. This is pervasive in soccer.

Busy, look, we're talking about cheating now. The offence itself and the punishment are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the intent of the player to break the rules.

If a soccer player kicks a player in the shins on purpose then he is cheating because that's against the rules. If you go up to block a shot and deliberately hit the player's arm then you're cheating.

If a soccer player takes a swipe at the ball but misses and kicks another player in the shin then it is an offence but not cheating, because it was an accident, if you go up to block a shot by putting your hand in front of the ball but miss and hit the guy's arm instead then that's an offence but not cheating because you tried to play within the rules.

If a soccer player tackles someone, takes the ball first and follows thro' by kicking that player's shin then it isn't cheating nor a foul, if you go up to block a shot and succeed with no contact to the opponant whatsoever then (obviously) it's not cheating nor an offence.



How much plainer do you want it.

[Busyman]

Busy, look, we're talking about cheating now. The offence itself and the punishment are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the intent of the player to break the rules.

If a soccer player kicks a player in the shins on purpose then he is cheating because that's against the rules. If you go up to block a shot and deliberately hit the player's arm then you're cheating.

If a soccer player takes a swipe at the ball but misses and kicks another player in the shin then it is an offence but not cheating, because it was an accident, if you go up to block a shot by putting your hand in front of the ball but miss and hit the guy's arm instead then that's an offence but not cheating because you tried to play within the rules.

If a soccer player tackles someone, takes the ball first and follows thro' by kicking that player's shin then it isn't cheating nor a foul, if you go up to block a shot and succeed with no contact to the opponant whatsoever then (obviously) it's not cheating nor an offence.



How much plainer do you want it.

Uh, dude....'cause you are arguing intention.

The rule is the rule. Too much contact results in a foul.

[manker]

Uh, dude....'cause you are arguing intention.

The rule is the rule. Too much contact results in a foul.

Great, we've got to the point where you can't refute what I say so you make illegible comments which mean nothing.

[Busyman]

Great, we've got to the point where you can't refute what I say so you make illegible comments which mean nothing.

You can read.

You've honed on cheating which happens in all sports yet made it a basketball exclusive.

Whether a foul is intentional or not means not one jot and is irrelevent (this of course depends on the type of foul).

Soccer refs ignore this cheating which happens way more in the sport than basketball. If you kick a player before the ball is contacted, that's against the rules.

Yet it goes on. Get off the high horse.

[manker]

You've honed on cheating which happens in all sports yet made it a basketball exclusive.

Yet it goes on. Get off the high horse.

The only way that I can distinguish Basketball from other sports in this respect is the amount of intentional rule breaking that occurs ...
Far from this ethos being particular to Basketball, it's also manifested itself in Soccer and other sports - and has probably always been evident. Players of my favourite team sometimes dive to gain an unfair advantage. I won't dress it up and call it gamesmanship or try to waffle my way thro' an explanation of how it's not cheating simply because the practice is fairly widespread now.

I've said it goes on in all sports and made a particular example about my favourite sport - nay, favourite team!

I'm not on any high horse, I'm merely saying that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating and I'm totally against that practice - in ANY sport.

Earlier you seemed to prefer to delude yourself that it was not cheating. Now it seems that you've decided that it is cheating. Good, good.

[Busyman]

The only way that I can distinguish Basketball from other sports in this respect is the amount of intentional rule breaking that occurs ...
Far from this ethos being particular to Basketball, it's also manifested itself in Soccer and other sports - and has probably always been evident. Players of my favourite team sometimes dive to gain an unfair advantage. I won't dress it up and call it gamesmanship or try to waffle my way thro' an explanation of how it's not cheating simply because the practice is fairly widespread now.

I've said it goes on in all sports and made a particular example about my favourite sport - nay, favourite team!

I'm not on any high horse, I'm merely saying that intentionally breaking the rules is cheating and I'm totally against that practice - in ANY sport.

Earlier you seemed to prefer to delude yourself that it was not cheating. Now it seems that you've decided that it is cheating. Good, good.

Regarding the basketball exclusive stuff, I got you mixed up with JP. However, with the amount of intentional rule breaking that occurs, that onus is on soccer.

In sports, you do what you can get away with within reason (as what happens in real everyday life).

A player shoots a jump shot. If I can tap his elbow to throw the shot off, so be it. He gets his fouls shots to make me pay for it. Call it tricks of the trade. Call it cheating. It disrupts the game not one jot.

Now when a foul is not called....that's another story.
I'll be quick to say, "The refs are cheating for the other team".

[Snee]

Contact sports=games in which intentional offensive physical contact, for example in order to steal the ball/puck/whatever, is allowed according to the rules.

Non-Contact sports=games in which it isn't.


That's all there is to it.

I know people run into each other, and I know there are lots of injuries resulting from physical contact in basketball. But it still doesn't make it a contact sport.

You can crash into people in baseball, cricket (or can't you?), and all kinds of other games too (hell, I bet you can do it in curling if you really try). But the amount of unintentional contact, or contact outside of the rules, doesn't change the definition of the game.

Basketball may even be a violent game, if you choose to play it that way, but that doesn't alter the definition of the game.


No one is disputing that people may get injured or touch each other, busy, it's just that it doesn't happen in such a way that you can call it a contact-sport.

[Busyman]

Contact sports=games in which intentional offensive physical contact, for example in order to steal the ball/puck/whatever, is allowed according to the rules.

Non-Contact sports=games in which it isn't.


That's all there is to it.

I know people run into each other, and I know there are lots of injuries resulting from physical contact in basketball. But it still doesn't make it a contact sport.

You can crash into people in baseball, cricket (or can't you?), and all kinds of other games too (hell, I bet you can do it in curling if you really try). But the amount of unintentional contact, or contact outside of the rules, doesn't change the definition of the game.

Basketball may even be a violent game, if you choose to play it that way, but that doesn't alter the definition of the game.


No one is disputing that people may get injured or touch each other, busy, it's just that it doesn't happen in such a way that you can call it a contact-sport.

You are wrong.

See my earlier posts regarding post-up play.

A sport such as tennis involves absolutely no player-to-player contact in it's gameplay. Basketball does.

Contact in the sport = contact sport.