Kings @ Lakers Game Thread 1/1, 7:30 p.m. PST
- Thread starter Emma
- Start date
- Status
Please show me where I have even remotely thrown a temper tantrum.
Retreat gracefully!
"Not trying to sound superior, just noting that it's nice to have a change of pace from the veiled cursing and complaining."
An apology was in order and I would have accepted it and not commented further.
You want to play putdown. Sorry, not interested. I thought this was a public forum where different ideas and opinions were shared without name calling and condescending know-it-all's.
Retreat gracefully!
"Not trying to sound superior, just noting that it's nice to have a change of pace from the veiled cursing and complaining."
An apology was in order and I would have accepted it and not commented further.
You want to play putdown. Sorry, not interested. I thought this was a public forum where different ideas and opinions were shared without name calling and condescending know-it-all's.
Fair enough. I disagree and I will make it clear that I don't pretend to decide what is objective and what isn't. It's merely an opinion that I state. Just like it's your opinion that I'm a condescending "know it all". I can refute that as well. Maybe I should re-phrase "complainers" and "objective analysis". I merely think that well thought out posts that make arguments on both sides of the ledger make for a better message board.
Were you even part of the blind rants and what not? If so, my apologies but I was referring to a few and I don't remember your name attached. How do you like that? I apologized even if subconsciously.
Were you even part of the blind rants and what not? If so, my apologies but I was referring to a few and I don't remember your name attached. How do you like that? I apologized even if subconsciously.
No, it is not wrong. It may be wrong for the fans, but it is not wrong for the fairest level of basketball. What you saw last night was a play that was a foul in any definition by the rules and yet it was ok because it was in the final seconds. It's not about "left and right people would absolutely HATE it". I know none of these refs want to lose their jobs because they called some last second foul, but refs need to man up and call the game the same. If refs are too scared to be involved in a clutch play, then they shouldn't have their job and whether you want them involved matters about as much as whether Star Wars or Star Trek is better.
Also if you don't like "ticky-tack" fouls in the last few seconds, then those "ticky-tack" fouls need to not be called the whole game. There isn't a different rulebook for end of game situations. To some people's dismay, there is actually only one rulebook for the whole game.
Also if you don't like "ticky-tack" fouls in the last few seconds, then those "ticky-tack" fouls need to not be called the whole game. There isn't a different rulebook for end of game situations. To some people's dismay, there is actually only one rulebook for the whole game.
Last edited:
There is nothing magical about the rulebook. Its changed constantly. Its not even the same at different levels/across different continents. They could change the rule so that dribbling was no longer necessary and you could just run with the bal like football or rugby and it still would be ok as long as the rule, whatever it is, is consistently enforced the same way. And this one, written, unwritten, whatever, actually is. In end of game situations, they just aren't going to call that foul, on pretty much anyone. As long as the on pretty much anyone remains true, and as long as everyone understands it as the way its called, there is no downside to it...except when your team loses. Your team wins, its great. Either way, its like a death penalty case -- the stakes are higher, so so is the threshhold before you blow that whistle.
Last ngiht what Kobe did was likely an offensive foul, but what if it had turned out upon replay to be a clever flop by Sergio? And the refs went for it, called the foul, and we win? Well as Kings fans we are all "yay!" But that would clearly be a complete game deciding bit of B.S., and you can bet when it happened to us we'd be screaming bloody murder about conspiracies, shoot the refs, and everything else. The risk of determining agame wiht a bad call is just too great. Nothing the matter with letting the players play there. They aren't going to call a foul on the defender either unless its somehting truly egregious. Its a level playing field, and that's really all that matters.
Last ngiht what Kobe did was likely an offensive foul, but what if it had turned out upon replay to be a clever flop by Sergio? And the refs went for it, called the foul, and we win? Well as Kings fans we are all "yay!" But that would clearly be a complete game deciding bit of B.S., and you can bet when it happened to us we'd be screaming bloody murder about conspiracies, shoot the refs, and everything else. The risk of determining agame wiht a bad call is just too great. Nothing the matter with letting the players play there. They aren't going to call a foul on the defender either unless its somehting truly egregious. Its a level playing field, and that's really all that matters.
Last edited:
True, but the Lakers were going through motions in the first half. Both Farmer and Odom admitted such. And Westphal said before the game that the Lakers get bored early in the games. So depite warnings not to do so, once again the Lakers thru the swith to win the game. Even down by twenty, I still thought the Lakers would win. What was your thought at that time? If I was asked to bet on the winner straight up at that point, I still would have taken the Lakers. If I recall, the Kings gave up a 7-point lead to the Lakers with two minutes to go to send the last gave into double overtime. How far up to the Kings have to be to ensure a victory in the game or at the two-minute mark?
I believe you call the rules in the rulebook. I believe the unwritten rules need to be removed. There are dangers to the way the game is called. Not knowing if the league is entirely legit or not leads to anger, the anger is not aswered by the press, the anger boils over out of the stands. Artest melee was started by a foul call the fans didn't agree with, they start loosing it and throwing stuff, hit the wrong guy and it is all over. This will happen again.
Subversed anger always bleeds out in ugly ways. Not to mention that the issue hurts attendance and popularity. The NFL is the top sport because of a more even financial playing field and refs held publicly accountable.
Subversed anger always bleeds out in ugly ways. Not to mention that the issue hurts attendance and popularity. The NFL is the top sport because of a more even financial playing field and refs held publicly accountable.
1) it for all intents pretty much IS in a rulebook (maybe a rulebook entitled common sense). Its like a common law wife. And before you say "but its not written" I have to premptively ask, so what? Have you read the NBA's rulebook? Don't worry, neither have I, or 99.5% of the fans out there. I'm willing to bet the percentages don't get too much better even with the players. We all just understand/know the rules form watching/playing. We learn the rules as they are enforced, not because it says so in Section 141(b)(ii). Now if somehting is inconsistently enforced, that's one thing. But if its pretty much always one way, and everybody learns it that way, for the 99.5% of us who don't pour over subection (iii) its pretty much just the rules.
2) you must have missed my second paragraph. The proposal would actually INCREASE ref involvement, and at the most critical time of the game. All that would do is make the conspiracy stuff even stronger. The onyl way to ever fully eliminate that stuff would be to just basically elikinate the refs, say its playground ball, no blood no foul. Less reffing, not more reffing. Everytime the ref, as authority figure, makes a call, 75% of which in basketball are judgment calls, and the other 25% bang/bang plays happening very fast, everytime they make a call its a fresh opportunity for it to be "wrong" as interpreted by whichever fan is watching, and therefore suspect. Basketball has a structural problem that way as a sport. No other sport has such a huge number of fouls between two players, and only the umps in baseball make as many calls overall. It inherently makes it more succeptible to conspiracy theorists. Asking refs, who are routinely accused of being corrupt or incompetent, to now step in and make routinely game-winning calls in the final seconds of games is just asking for true nuttiness.
- Status