West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: GangstaBoogy on December 27, 2007, 12:29:49 AM
-
It deserves its own thread...
(http://i19.tinypic.com/6jehs9g.gif)
(http://i15.tinypic.com/8c1awdg.gif)
From LA Times:
(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-12/34429419.jpg)
(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-12/34429928.jpg)
(http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/1e/fullj.dc1e94b7b76e555d81fc6e9956cb936a/dc1e94b7b76e555d81fc6e9956cb936a-getty-76075059ab015_suns_lakers.jpg)
Watch the Lakers reaction on this one:
(http://i19.tinypic.com/6ykoghk.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/v/1v6OIFNme6w&rel=1
-
It would be a crime not to put that in the sig.
-
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=163308.0 ;D
-
(http://store.fueledbyramen.com/prodpics/LTJoverratedsm.jpg)
-
(http://www.worldwartwobooks.com/shopimages/products/thumbnails/charge.jpg)
-
thats clearly an offensive foul
-
thats clearly an offensive foul
If you see it with no slow motion it doesn't look so clear, man. I mean it was a though decision. But it's probably an offensive foul, yeah. Gotta be real with y'all.
-
is it really necessary making TWO threads for laker fans to whack off to this in? lol
i cant wait for Celtics-Lakers later this week :D
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
-
(http://store.fueledbyramen.com/prodpics/LTJoverratedsm.jpg)
Alls I know is you're going to owe me 40 at the end of the season.
-
(http://www.worldwartwobooks.com/shopimages/products/thumbnails/charge.jpg)
It would be a crime to call that facial a charge.
-
(http://store.fueledbyramen.com/prodpics/LTJoverratedsm.jpg)
Alls I know is you're going to owe me 40 at the end of the season.
What was the bet?
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
You must be the worst ref ever. You can't run under a guy who's making his move to the basket. You have to be in position before he picks up his dribble.
-
thats clearly an offensive foul
If you see it with no slow motion it doesn't look so clear, man. I mean it was a though decision. But it's probably an offensive foul, yeah. Gotta be real with y'all.
Wrong...Nash tried to do the same thing to Kobe. You don't run under a dunker. You'll NEVER get the call in your favor.
-
yea i saw this dunk wit a whole bunch of cousins on christmas and we were all like oh shit that was a facial (no homo)
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
I mean it's not easy to see it live with no slow motion and shit. Cause it was quick.
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
You must be the worst ref ever. You can't run under a guy who's making his move to the basket. You have to be in position before he picks up his dribble.
Here it is, i was about to write it. I'm not so fluent in english, but i'll try to explain it anyway. This thing quoted is not a rule, but it's what referees tend to do on those situations lately. I'm not a referee (no more) myself (i was been an amateur one tho), but my father is an ULEB/Euroleague Special Commissioneer and former international basketball referee, and we talked about this dunk when we both saw it on tv. It's like NIK wrote: since it's becoming too easy to stop penetration by simply stopping 1 second before the impact, referees now tend to punish defenders who intentionally run under/against a guy who's making his move to the basket. It's the exact same situation with Nash/Kobe, where Nash runs on Kobe and stops just 1 second before the impact. That's not the right philosophy. You have to be in one position but you should let the opponent finish his dunk/shot/move without intentionally running on him.
So even if it was tecnichally a charge, they call it a defensive foul to punish the defender.
-
There's a reason you can see Grant Hill's number in the beginning of the clip.
-
F'k the rules....if you get dunked on, you get dunked on. It should be a rule that getting dunked on should never be a foul unless the dude dunkin pushes them out of the way before he takes off.
I got dunked on vicious one time by my homeboy who was nearly a foot taller than me...and I wasn't even thinkin "that's charging!!!" I was thinkin..."let me redeem myself next play!"
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
You must be the worst ref ever. You can't run under a guy who's making his move to the basket. You have to be in position before he picks up his dribble.
Here it is, i was about to write it. I'm not so fluent in english, but i'll try to explain it anyway. This thing quoted is not a rule, but it's what referees tend to do on those situations lately. I'm not a referee (no more) myself (i was been an amateur one tho), but my father is an ULEB/Euroleague Special Commissioneer and former international basketball referee, and we talked about this dunk when we both saw it on tv. It's like NIK wrote: since it's becoming too easy to stop penetration by simply stopping 1 second before the impact, referees now tend to punish defenders who intentionally run under/against a guy who's making his move to the basket. It's the exact same situation with Nash/Kobe, where Nash runs on Kobe and stops just 1 second before the impact. That's not the right philosophy. You have to be in one position but you should let the opponent finish his dunk/shot/move without intentionally running on him.
So even if it was tecnichally a charge, they call it a defensive foul to punish the defender.
(ill just bypass any post from NIK as im not in the mood to discuss with him)
i can find that argument somewhat valid , but still, he went "recklessly" forward with his knee/feet hitting the opponent first. you can't dunk like you're practicing thai-boxing (flying knee-kicks)
the guard was actually in position before trevor even jumped. furthermore, from this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v6OIFNme6w) it looks like the guard is sliding to the left, which means that even BEFORE the slide, he was in position.
but i dont watch NBA, i don't know how they interpret their rules, but in FIBA, imo , thats a foul.
i gotta admit though that the foul call isnt as clear as i said.
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
You must be the worst ref ever. You can't run under a guy who's making his move to the basket. You have to be in position before he picks up his dribble.
Here it is, i was about to write it. I'm not so fluent in english, but i'll try to explain it anyway. This thing quoted is not a rule, but it's what referees tend to do on those situations lately. I'm not a referee (no more) myself (i was been an amateur one tho), but my father is an ULEB/Euroleague Special Commissioneer and former international basketball referee, and we talked about this dunk when we both saw it on tv. It's like NIK wrote: since it's becoming too easy to stop penetration by simply stopping 1 second before the impact, referees now tend to punish defenders who intentionally run under/against a guy who's making his move to the basket. It's the exact same situation with Nash/Kobe, where Nash runs on Kobe and stops just 1 second before the impact. That's not the right philosophy. You have to be in one position but you should let the opponent finish his dunk/shot/move without intentionally running on him.
So even if it was tecnichally a charge, they call it a defensive foul to punish the defender.
(ill just bypass any post from NIK as im not in the mood to discuss with him)
i can find that argument somewhat valid , but still, he went "recklessly" forward with his knee/feet hitting the opponent first. you can't dunk like you're practicing thai-boxing (flying knee-kicks)
the guard was actually in position before trevor even jumped. furthermore, from this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v6OIFNme6w) it looks like the guard is sliding to the left, which means that even BEFORE the slide, he was in position.
but i dont watch NBA, i don't know how they interpret their rules, but in FIBA, imo , thats a foul.
i gotta admit though that the foul call isnt as clear as i said.
Yeah it was a though decision by the refs. Anyway in the NBA they tend to give advantage to the dunker.
(FIBA is a different world, you know)
-
as a basketball referee, i cant see how thats not a clear charge. the defender was in position
(if the defender)
- was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred
- took a legal guarding position before the contact, that is, one with both feet on the floor
- was hit on the torso (as opposed to the arm or leg)
- respected the elements of time and distance
- (is outside the restriction area, nba rules)
then the offensive player was at fault and should be charged with a charging foul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_foul
he fulfilled all premises
thats a clear charge.
You must be the worst ref ever. You can't run under a guy who's making his move to the basket. You have to be in position before he picks up his dribble.
Here it is, i was about to write it. I'm not so fluent in english, but i'll try to explain it anyway. This thing quoted is not a rule, but it's what referees tend to do on those situations lately. I'm not a referee (no more) myself (i was been an amateur one tho), but my father is an ULEB/Euroleague Special Commissioneer and former international basketball referee, and we talked about this dunk when we both saw it on tv. It's like NIK wrote: since it's becoming too easy to stop penetration by simply stopping 1 second before the impact, referees now tend to punish defenders who intentionally run under/against a guy who's making his move to the basket. It's the exact same situation with Nash/Kobe, where Nash runs on Kobe and stops just 1 second before the impact. That's not the right philosophy. You have to be in one position but you should let the opponent finish his dunk/shot/move without intentionally running on him.
So even if it was tecnichally a charge, they call it a defensive foul to punish the defender.
(ill just bypass any post from NIK as im not in the mood to discuss with him)
i can find that argument somewhat valid , but still, he went "recklessly" forward with his knee/feet hitting the opponent first. you can't dunk like you're practicing thai-boxing (flying knee-kicks)
the guard was actually in position before trevor even jumped. furthermore, from this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v6OIFNme6w) it looks like the guard is sliding to the left, which means that even BEFORE the slide, he was in position.
but i dont watch NBA, i don't know how they interpret their rules, but in FIBA, imo , thats a foul.
i gotta admit though that the foul call isnt as clear as i said.
Of course you're not gunna debate with me...You'll get sonned every time.
Watch the clip. You can see the back of Hill's jersey as Ariza is making his move to the basket. That's because he's running in front of the play=foul. He wasn't already positioned there. Quite disgusting that you'd call an offensive foul on such a nasty facial. :grumpy:
-
And how the hell is that a reckless dunk anyways? It looks to me like he moved his legs sideways just to avoid kneeing Hill, with his lame attempt of drawing the charge. SMASH!
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
a defender can move his feet and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
a defender can move his feets and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
^LMFAO! Now I don't believe you were ever a ref...You can't move sideways when drawing a charge. If that were the case, EVERYONE would be running under dunkers. What kinda shit is that? Priceless.
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
a defender can move his feets and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
Mmmm.. no. He can't move his feets, man. That's the rule #1, forgot that?
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
a defender can move his feet and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
Mmmm.. no. He can't move his feets, man. That's the rule #1, forgot that?
actually, he can
When judging a block/charge situation involving a player with the ball, an official shall use the following principles:
• The defensive player must establish an initial legal guarding position by facing the player with the ball and having both feet on the floor.
• The defensive player may remain stationary, jump vertically, move laterally or move backwards in order to maintain the initial legal guarding position.
• When moving to maintain the initial legal guarding position, one or both feet may be off the floor for an instant, as long as the movement is lateral or backwards, but not towards the player with the ball.
• Contact must occur on the torso, in which case the defensive player would be considered as having been at the place of contact first.
• Having established a legal guarding position the defensive player may turn within his cylinder to cushion any blow or to avoid injury.
In the event of any of the above situations, the contact shall be considered as having been caused by the player with the ball.
http://www.fiba.com/asp_scripts/downMana.asp?fileID=328
i would bet that the rules are simiar in NBA as well.
-
LOL@I-BO.
NBA Foul & Penalty Rules (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList)
Snippet
Section II--By Dribbler
a. A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, or (2) attempt to dribble between two opponents, or (3) attempt to dribble between an opponent and a boundary, where sufficient space is not avail-able for illegal contact to be avoided.
b. If a defender is able to establish a legal position in the straight line path of the dribbler, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his dribble.
c. The dribbler must be in control of his body at all times. If illegal contact occurs, the responsibility is on the dribbler.
PENALTY: The offender is assessed an offensive foul. There is no team foul. The ball is awarded to the offended team on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended.
EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section I--a.
d. If a dribbler has sufficient space to have his head and shoulders in advance of his defender, the responsibility for illegal contact is on the defender.
e. If a dribbler has established a straight line path, a defender may not crowd him out of that path.
PENALTY: The defender shall be assessed a personal foul and a team foul. If the penalty is not in effect, the offended team is awarded the ball on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended. If the penalty is in effect, one free throw attempt plus a penalty free throw attempt is awarded.
-
LOL@I-BO.
NBA Foul & Penalty Rules (http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList)
Snippet
Section II--By Dribbler
a A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, or (2) attempt to dribble between two opponents, or (3) attempt to dribble between an opponent and a boundary, where sufficient space is not avail-able for illegal contact to be avoided.
b. If a defender is able to establish a legal position in the straight line path of the dribbler, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his dribble.
c. The dribbler must be in control of his body at all times. If illegal contact occurs (*heading knee first for example), the responsibility is on the dribbler. PENALTY: The offender is assessed an offensive foul. There is no team foul. The ball is awarded to the offended team on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended.
EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section I--a.
d. If a dribbler has sufficient space to have his head and shoulders in advance of his defender, the responsibility for illegal contact is on the defender.
e. If a dribbler has established a straight line path, a defender may not crowd him out of that path.
PENALTY: The defender shall be assessed a personal foul and a team foul. If the penalty is not in effect, the offended team is awarded the ball on the sideline nearest the spot where play was interrupted but no nearer to the baseline than the free throw line extended. If the penalty is in effect, one free throw attempt plus a penalty free throw attempt is awarded.
crowd
Pronunciation: \ˈkrau̇d\
1 a: to press on : hurry b: to press close <the players crowded around the coach>
2: to collect in numbers
transitive verb
1 a: to fill by pressing or thronging together <a room crowded with children> b: to press, force, or thrust into a small space
2: push, force —often used with off or out<crowd a person off the sidewalk>
3 a: to urge on b: to put on (sail) in excess of the usual for greater speed
4: to put pressure on <don't crowd me, I'll pay>
5: throng, jostle
6: to press or stand close to <the batter was crowding the plate>
crowd = force the player back, which can only happen if you move forward, or pushing him back (which btw grant hill clearly didn't do)
a defender can move his feet and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
furthermore, you disregarded the first points:
Section II--By Dribbler
a. A dribbler shall not (1) charge into an opponent who has established a legal guarding position, or (2) attempt to dribble between two opponents, or (3) attempt to dribble between an opponent and a boundary, where sufficient space is not avail-able for illegal contact to be avoided.
b. If a defender is able to establish a legal position in the straight line path of the dribbler, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his dribble.
c. The dribbler must be in control of his body at all times. If illegal contact occurs (*heading knee first for example), the responsibility is on the dribbler.
please sccit, im not having a laugh making you look like a fool, thats why until now, unlike you, i havent thrown a single disrespecting comment toward you. but i recommend you to stop with that "i know everything because i live in america" mentality, look at antonio, his father is a EuroLeague commissioner, but still he can give and take arguments. just accept that maybe... just maybe i might have a better grasp of rules and regelations in basketball than you. you're getting owned each time you're trying to discredit me, so please stop.
-
I dunno about your retarded European rules, but it is widely known and accepted in the NBA that you can't slide under a dunker to draw a charge. Bottom line.
-
You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.
-
You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2015/trevorfoulem9.jpg)
ariza is not even in the 3 sec box when grant hill is in position just outside the restriction area, with both his legs standing firmly on the ground, 6-7 feet away from ariza. OFF COURSE he has every right to be there. as you can see in that picture he's crossing his arms on his chest to show the ref that he's on position (which he shouldnt need to do).
grant hills back facing the camera isn't that strange since ariza is cutting in from the right side of the court (check the pic)
do you really not see how there's a possibility for this case being a charge?
if you don't ... OK.. lets just drop it.
-
.....
I have to ask my daddy about the thing you quoted. I don't speak english so well so i'll simply ask him the rule. I was 100% sure you couldn't be in movement in order to take a charge. Like i said, if you move towards the dribbler they call it a defensive foul 99% of the times. If you move lateral (or backwards, even if it's unlikely) to take position and your feet are both on the floor and freeze before the impact (you ain't moving) then it's a charge. But since you're doing all this work i'll ask my father, man. He knows the deal.
That's a good discussion, anyway. +1 to both of you.
-
i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.
btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.
-
Grant Hill never stopped moving his feet...therefore its a blocking foul.
This dunk reminds me a lot of Kobe's dunk on Nash.
a defender can move his feets and still be in position as long as he's moving backwards or sideways.
Mmmm.. no. He can't move his feets, man. That's the rule #1, forgot that?
Yeah man your feet have to be planted before the person with the ball makes his move. Check the clips, Hill kept shuffling his feet to get into position (and probably to force him to take off further in hopes of disrupting the dunk).
-
i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.
btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.
If you are a ref you know you don't read books when you are on the court, lol. You simply analyze the movement of the defender when you take your decision. If he moves towards the player with the ball to take the contact you usually call it a defensive foul. If he's in his initial guarding position and he just moves lateral or backwards to mantain it and prevent the dribbler from doing an uncontested dunk/lay-up, you call it a charge, cause the defender was ALREADY in a legal guarding position and he simply moved to adjust his position. But his feet must be planted on the floor and he shouldn't be in movement when there's the contact.
In this case (sorry but i can't see videos at the moment), if i remember well, Hill was not in an initial guarding position. He lost his man. To be in the legal guarding position you should have both feet on the floor and you have to be IN FRONT of the player with the ball. Hill is not in that position, since he's moving lateral without facing Ariza. In my opinion that's a defensive foul. Because he didn't have an initial guarding position. But i understand some could call it a charge cause in the moment of the impact Hill was in a perfect position with both the feets on the floor and in front of Ariza. It's a defensive foul to me, anyway. But it's extremely hard to make that call for the ref.
About the Kobe vs Nash thing, it's easier to see it's a defensive foul, imho. Just look at Nash. He moves towards Kobe just to prevent him from dunking. Defensive foul. Easy.
Just my opinion.
I'll ask my father about the rule.
P.S.
Watch out for Juventus: i'm pretty sure we will finish 2nd this season, and we'll contend for the title (and the Champions League) in the 2008/09 season.
-
i believe thats the way it should be, and in sweden, thats the way it is. maybe they follow that strictly in NBA/FIBA, but atleast according to the rules and regelations, that's the way it's supposed to be. you know like in football, some rules aren't followed strictly either (attempting to trip an opponent inside the penalty box often doesnt result in a penalty even though it should according to UEFA rules) ask your father, im looking forward to a response, like you said, this is a good discussion.
btw juventus third spot this season is impressive i must say.
If you are a ref you know you don't read books when you are on the court, lol. You simply analyze the movement of the defender when you take your decision. If he moves towards the player with the ball to take the contact you usually call it a defensive foul. If he's in his initial guarding position and he just moves lateral or backwards to mantain it and prevent the dribbler from doing an uncontested dunk/lay-up, you call it a charge, cause the defender was ALREADY in a legal guarding position and he simply moved to adjust his position. But his feet must be planted on the floor and he shouldn't be in movement when there's the contact.
In this case (sorry but i can't see videos at the moment), if i remember well, Hill was not in an initial guarding position. He lost his man. To be in the legal guarding position you should have both feet on the floor and you have to be IN FRONT of the player with the ball. Hill is not in that position, since he's moving lateral without facing Ariza. In my opinion that's a defensive foul. Because he didn't have an initial guarding position. But i understand some could call it a charge cause in the moment of the impact Hill was in a perfect position with both the feets on the floor and in front of Ariza. It's a defensive foul to me, anyway.
And it's easier to see in Kobe's facial to Nash. Just look at Nash. He moves towards Kobe just to prevent him from dunking. Defensive foul.
Just my opinion.
I'll ask my father about the rule.
P.S.
Watch out for Juventus: i'm pretty sure we will finish 2nd this season, and we'll contend for the title (and the Champions League) in the 2008/09 season.
posting the picture again
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2015/trevorfoulem9.jpg)
you can clearly see that grant hill stands with both his feets on the ground, facing ariza (even though it's not a premise for a charge, as i've already pointed out)
i dont read books on the court, sure, but i use the information i've gathered from the book on the court
during the entire fastbreak, hill was atleast 6 feet ahead of ariza, since he saw that his teammate had his eyes on the pointguard(??)
yea.. i just checked the kobe/nash case, thats a clear personal foul. nash probably realised that he was inside the restriction area and wanted to move out for the charge, but by doing that he fouled.
-
You're missing the whole point of the crowding a path to begin with. If Ariza was on his drive to the basket before Hill established position, it is not an offensive foul. As you can see, Grant Hill's back is facing the camera in the beginning of the clip, which means that Ariza established his drive to the basket first=defensive foul. You could never be a ref in America.
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2015/trevorfoulem9.jpg)
ariza is not even in the 3 sec box when grant hill is in position just outside the restriction area, with both his legs standing firmly on the ground, 6-7 feet away from ariza. OFF COURSE he has every right to be there. as you can see in that picture he's crossing his arms on his chest to show the ref that he's on position (which he shouldnt need to do).
grant hills back facing the camera isn't that strange since ariza is cutting in from the right side of the court (check the pic)
do you really not see how there's a possibility for this case being a charge?
if you don't ... OK.. lets just drop it.
LOL@3 sec box....Yes, Ariza is in the KEY. As you can see, he's picked up his dribble and is making his move to the basket, while Hill is still running to position. Defensive foul. I can see how it looks like an offensive foul, but that's where I draw the line.
-
Fuck a rules..
Danm!! Ariza just Gassed Grant Hill.
That shit don't wash off either..
Nasty shit!!
-
no matter who says what...great fuckin dunk.
-
where was ariza against the celtix?