NDL Forum

Something bad is going to happen one day. Between this, and the fans storming the court throwing punches last week.

I love the idea of storming the court, but they need to do away with that. Not sure how you fix the latest one, you can only have so much security.

shel311 wrote:Something bad is going to happen one day. Between this, and the fans storming the court throwing punches last week.

I love the idea of storming the court, but they need to do away with that. Not sure how you fix the latest one, you can only have so much security.

Monica Seles approves this message.

I couldn't see the inbound play for a bit, but just saw it. Last I checked, head coaches get fired for not winning games. Hmm, I think I would think of anything and everything to give me an advantage. Winning at all costs? What was wrong with that play? Inbounder can run the baseline. Their guy stays in his face. No reason you can't pick the defender. And just because the coach said watch for it doesn't make it wrong either. We call trick plays in football, guys do it in basketball. You are looking for a certain something and you don't want the ref to be confused and make the wrong call. I see it as great coaching and innovative really.

its crazy cause that play is so good. never in my wildest dreams would i ever thought up such a simple idea. and it worked perfectly.

nick wrote:its crazy cause that play is so good. never in my wildest dreams would i ever thought up such a simple idea. and it worked perfectly.

Exactly

Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

that is a pretty ridiculous statement to make, IMO. Agree to disagree.

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

You truly are clueless.

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, .

either the guy draws a foul, commits one or sets a pick. Hows it any different from drawing up a play to drive to the bucket and score?

ajalves wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, .

either the guy draws a foul, commits one or sets a pick. Hows it any different from drawing up a play to drive to the bucket and score?

Or throwing up a jump ball hoping for pass interference? Or a hard count in football?

or hitting someone with a 90+ MPH fastball for "unwritten rules"

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

You realize that coaches practice taking a charge? Inbounds plays are always drawn up to score/get ball in/draw foul. You truly don't get coaching a sport...

One is designed to score and win the game. The other is designed to draw a cheap foul to get free throws.

What's hilarious is that if Cal had done this, or I were saying it was genius, the same people would be arguing against me. So.....shove it.

And Peay, for the umpteenth time--I don't, never have, and never will care what you think. Get that through your head.

Right. Cal isn't smart enough to draw up a play like that so its a moot point.

cougnix wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

You realize that coaches practice taking a charge? Inbounds plays are always drawn up to score/get ball in/draw foul. You truly don't get coaching a sport...

Yeah, taking a charge as part of defending a play is one thing.

Drawing up a play to force a guy to charge (someone who isn't looking and is defending properly) is lame. He wasn't setting the screen to free up the baseline guy, he did it with the intent to force free throws. He stated as much to the referee before hand. Teams set screens to free people up, the plays aren't designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key, so he runs you over and we get a foul", they're designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key so his man can get into the paint and score/create".

That's my point. Screening the man on the baseline isn't cheap. Doing it with the intent to earn a foul--rather than to free up the inbounder for a pass--is cheap. I understand coaching just fine--and I don't know many coaches who coach to "draw fouls", I know coaches who draw up plays to get a guy in position to either score or be fouled, but mostly to score.

But whatever. I know nothing. I guess the other sportswriters and coaches who agree with me are also stupid and know nothing about coaching or the game.

cougnix wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

You realize that coaches practice taking a charge? Inbounds plays are always drawn up to score/get ball in/draw foul. You truly don't get coaching a sport...

Yeah, taking a charge as part of defending a play is one thing.

Drawing up a play to force a guy to charge (someone who isn't looking and is defending properly) is lame. He wasn't setting the screen to free up the baseline guy, he did it with the intent to force free throws. He stated as much to the referee before hand. Teams set screens to free people up, the plays aren't designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key, so he runs you over and we get a foul", they're designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key so his man can get into the paint and score/create".

That's my point. Screening the man on the baseline isn't cheap. Doing it with the intent to earn a foul--rather than to free up the inbounder for a pass--is cheap. I understand coaching just fine--and I don't know many coaches who coach to "draw fouls", I know coaches who draw up plays to get a guy in position to either score or be fouled, but mostly to score.

But whatever. I know nothing. I guess the other sportswriters and coaches who agree with me are also stupid and know nothing about coaching or the game.

You see it all the time Jason. When teams press, the try and set screens, yes to free up the player, but also with the possibility that the guy that is getting screened runs him over hence drawing the foul. There was nothing illegal, dirty or cheap about the play. It was a great design that got the desired results. Get over yourself...

jsence2 wrote:

cougnix wrote:

jsence2 wrote:Sorry, drawing up a play to result in a foul is cheap, IMO. Agree to disagree.

Not to mention that it wasn't a charging call, it was a blocking call, guy wasn't even close to set.

You realize that coaches practice taking a charge? Inbounds plays are always drawn up to score/get ball in/draw foul. You truly don't get coaching a sport...

Yeah, taking a charge as part of defending a play is one thing.

Drawing up a play to force a guy to charge (someone who isn't looking and is defending properly) is lame. He wasn't setting the screen to free up the baseline guy, he did it with the intent to force free throws. He stated as much to the referee before hand. Teams set screens to free people up, the plays aren't designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key, so he runs you over and we get a foul", they're designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key so his man can get into the paint and score/create".

That's my point. Screening the man on the baseline isn't cheap. Doing it with the intent to earn a foul--rather than to free up the inbounder for a pass--is cheap. I understand coaching just fine--and I don't know many coaches who coach to "draw fouls", I know coaches who draw up plays to get a guy in position to either score or be fouled, but mostly to score.

But whatever. I know nothing. I guess the other sportswriters and coaches who agree with me are also stupid and know nothing about coaching or the game.

Same fucking sentence. You are hilarious...

jsence2 wrote:
Yeah, taking a charge as part of defending a play is one thing.

Drawing up a play to force a guy to charge (someone who isn't looking and is defending properly) is lame.

He should have been looking and more importantly his teammates should have communicated with him that the screen was there. Coaching and preparation.

jsence2 wrote:
He wasn't setting the screen to free up the baseline guy, he did it with the intent to force free throws. He stated as much to the referee before hand. Teams set screens to free people up, the plays aren't designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key, so he runs you over and we get a foul", they're designed to "screen the guy at the top of the key so his man can get into the paint and score/create".

So if he had run the guy over and the guy's coach hadn't planned for free throws it's ok. Yeah. Gotcha.

So you're basically saying the coach should have said "Ok guys. We have .6 seconds left, we're down by 2, and we have to go the length of the court. Let's heave the ball downcourt, hope it doesn't get picked off or tipped, and then hope we can get a decent shot or our season and our seniors' careers are over. Now I know we have a great free throw shooter and they're probably going to have someone on the ball and because it wasn't a deadball stoppage we can run the baseline and it would be really smart to try and draw a foul for said free throw shooter somehow but no, that's cheap and I'd rather end our season than do that."

As I said. You are clueless. Stick to soccer.

Yeah, the sport that has the worst flopping, faking injuries to draw fouls...hmm weird...