OT The new foul rules

[Rastapopoulos]

There have been some posts about this already, but it seems important enough to have a thread about. Trae's bitching about it, Kuz likes it - I think it's made the NBA just orders of magnitude more fun to watch. More like soccer, less like American Football, so 100% positive!

 

[e_blazer]

There have been some posts about this already, but it seems important enough to have a thread about. Trae's bitching about it, Kuz likes it - I think it's made the NBA just orders of magnitude more fun to watch. More like soccer, less like American Football, so 100% positive!

Okay, I was with you up until that las line. I usually think of soccer as about as exciting as sloth porn, but I have to admit that this play was from the recent Timbers match was pretty impressive:

 

[Natebishop3]

There have been some posts about this already, but it seems important enough to have a thread about. Trae's bitching about it, Kuz likes it - I think it's made the NBA just orders of magnitude more fun to watch. More like soccer, less like American Football, so 100% positive!

Of course Trae is bitching. He’s a bitch.

 

[wizenheimer]

I think the new foul rules are bullshit because it brings so many more offensive drives and plays into judgement calls when the officials are making a concerted effort to NOT blow their whistles. It was using a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun on a hummingbird. All the officials had to do was stop calling fouls when guys like Harden or Young so blatantly made non-basketball moves to draw contact.

it has certainly hurt Dame, a ton, and he wasn't one of the guys doing shit like Harden. Dame is absorbing more contact than ever, and he's being bumped off line and physically redirected all the time



what is total bullshit about the way the rules are being interpreted is that Dame's FT rate is 62% of what it was last season. Harden's FT rate is 87% of what it was last season. And we all know Harden was a main target of this rule. Again, these rules are punishing the wrong people

 

[bobf]

So my understanding was the rule change is that unnatural motion by the offensive players that create contact will be ruled an offensive foul. So kicking your leg out. Pump faking then jumping way forward into the defender. I like that. But why does that affect Dame?

Dame draws fouls coming off a screen and then quick stopping to shoot the three then the defender fighting around the screen runs into Dame. Or he gets fouled at the rim. Nothing unnatural there. Why does this hurt Dame?

 

[e_blazer]

Always annoy the hell out of me that Americans think of soccer as boring when baseball is considered America's pastime. My wife's favorite sport, but I can't watch past the 3rd inning without going a little insane.

I view baseball as equivalent to soccer in terms of boredom factor. Either one is, IMO, dependent upon being a fan of the team in order to be willing to invest a whole lot of time watching not much happen.

 

[e_blazer]

So my understanding was the rule change is that unnatural motion by the offensive players that create contact will be ruled an offensive foul. So kicking your leg out. Pump faking then jumping way forward into the defender. I like that. But why does that affect Dame?

Dame draws fouls coming off a screen and then quick stopping to shoot the three then the defender fighting around the screen runs into Dame. Or he gets fouled at the rim. Nothing unnatural there. Why does this hurt Dame?

I think the refs are still figuring the rule changes out. The link below has video clips of how it’s supposed to work. I agree that there’s a lot of interpretation involved that’s going to lead to a lot of frustrated players and fans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...foul-abnormal-moves/1k3iwiwqplmo9zznivoev48do

 

[wizenheimer]

So my understanding was the rule change is that unnatural motion by the offensive players that create contact will be ruled an offensive foul. So kicking your leg out. Pump faking then jumping way forward into the defender. I like that. But why does that affect Dame?

Dame draws fouls coming off a screen and then quick stopping to shoot the three then the defender fighting around the screen runs into Dame. Or he gets fouled at the rim. Nothing unnatural there. Why does this hurt Dame?

because the officials are interpenetrating the new rules poorly? ....which could have easily been predicted...and was?

look at this, Dame's rate of FGA's at the rim:



and again, his FT rate progression:



in other words, Dame's FGA at the rim this year are 119% of his career mark, and 137% of his mark last season. Yet, his FT rate is 67% of his career mark and 62% of his mark last season

that those two metrics are headed so dramatically in opposite directions might just be coincidence. But that seems like a mighty tall coincidence considering the rule change and what we've seen so far, this season, in the NBA

by the way, his FTA's/possession are 59% of last season

so I guess the question is, which you kind of already answered, is Dame one of those players who was egregiously using unnatural moves to draw fouls? My answer is no....and that dovetails back to the rule change being a bad one because it was too damn broad and made the officials drastically over-compensate in their judgement calls

 

[riverman]

I like the rule change....hate games played at the free throw line...let em play defense!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I view baseball as equivalent to soccer in terms of boredom factor. Either one is, IMO, dependent upon being a fan of the team in order to be willing to invest a whole lot of time watching not much happen.

That's ridiculous. "Soccer" is constant flow. Baseball is 99% waiting for the pitcher to warm up. Baseball is slightly less boring than Cricket, I'll give you that much.

Baseball and American Football seem designed entirely around ad breaks. And in both cases, the actual games are more about the surrounding activities than what's happening on the pitch.

It's interesting that the massive growth of interest in "Soccer" in the US has not been paralleled by a growth in interest in American Football in the rest of the world... because it's a stupid, entirely artificial game. Nobody in a favela in Brazil is going to start a pickup American Football game. Even Rugby, a game invented at a posh private school, is more natural.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm in favor of the rules even if they hurt Dame, because the games are so much more entertaining.

 

[bobf]

because the officials are interpenetrating the new rules poorly? ....which could have easily been predicted...and was?

look at this, Dame's rate of FGA's at the rim:

View attachment 41421

and again, his FT rate progression:

View attachment 41422

in other words, Dame's FGA at the rim this year are 119% of his career mark, and 137% of his mark last season. Yet, his FT rate is 67% of his career mark and 62% of his mark last season

that those two metrics are headed so dramatically in opposite directions might just be coincidence. But that seems like a mighty tall coincidence considering the rule change and what we've seen so far, this season, in the NBA

by the way, his FTA's/possession are 59% of last season

so I guess the question is, which you kind of already answered, is Dame one of those players who was egregiously using unnatural moves to draw fouls? My answer is no....and that dovetails back to the rule change being a bad one because it was too damn broad and made the officials drastically over-compensate in their judgement calls

Yeah seems like they are mixing up not calling fouls on abnormal moves with trying to not call as many defensive fouls. However the league average is down 10% to 15%. Nothing like Dame. Dame does hunt for fouls but mostly legally even within the new rules. WWNBA strikes again.

 

[bobf]

I think the refs are still figuring the rule changes out. The link below has video clips of how it’s supposed to work. I agree that there’s a lot of interpretation involved that’s going to lead to a lot of frustrated players and fans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sp...foul-abnormal-moves/1k3iwiwqplmo9zznivoev48do

Thanks. Not much there that should hurt Dame.

 

[riverman]

That's ridiculous. "Soccer" is constant flow. Baseball is 99% waiting for the pitcher to warm up. Baseball is slightly less boring than Cricket, I'll give you that much.

Baseball and American Football seem designed entirely around ad breaks. And in both cases, the actual games are more about the surrounding activities than what's happening on the pitch.

It's interesting that the massive growth of interest in "Soccer" in the US has not been paralleled by a growth in interest in American Football in the rest of the world... because it's a stupid, entirely artificial game. Nobody in a favela in Brazil is going to start a pickup American Football game. Even Rugby, a game invented at a posh private school, is more natural.

if you think 99 percent of baseball is pitchers warming up...you've never watched baseball...it's not Cricket which is the most boring sport on the planet...soccer can be as boring as any sport that ends 0-0 .....just like baseball...a good game is exciting...blowouts are boring....I've seen plenty of boring games in both sports but Cricket is always boring

 

[Rastapopoulos]

if you think 99 percent of baseball is pitchers warming up...you've never watched baseball...it's not Cricket which is the most boring sport on the planet...soccer can be as boring as any sport that ends 0-0 .....just like baseball...a good game is exciting...blowouts are boring....I've seen plenty of boring games in both sports but Cricket is always boring

Oh I've watched baseball - a lot more than you've watched cricket, I'd wager. And if forced, I guess I'd watch Baseball rather than "Football".

Also: not to defend Cricket, but there are over a billion fanatic Cricket fans in South Asia. And I guess the Japanese like Baseball.

 

[riverman]

Oh I've watched baseball - a lot more than you've watched cricket, I'd wager. And if forced, I guess I'd watch Baseball rather than "Football".

Also: not to defend Cricket, but there are over a billion fanatic Cricket fans in South Asia. And I guess the Japanese like Baseball.

I've watched a lot of rugby and cricket but baseball isn't 99 percent warmups...cricket where the score is 259 to 173? I love rugby though...cricket blows...I wouldn't watch a whole cricket match..ever..Japan and Taiwan are in the world little league baseball championships with Cuba and the US almost every year.....it's big there...I played baseball in Taiwan...won 3 eastern conf championships there..

 

[e_blazer]

That's ridiculous. "Soccer" is constant flow. Baseball is 99% waiting for the pitcher to warm up. Baseball is slightly less boring than Cricket, I'll give you that much.

Baseball and American Football seem designed entirely around ad breaks. And in both cases, the actual games are more about the surrounding activities than what's happening on the pitch.

It's interesting that the massive growth of interest in "Soccer" in the US has not been paralleled by a growth in interest in American Football in the rest of the world... because it's a stupid, entirely artificial game. Nobody in a favela in Brazil is going to start a pickup American Football game. Even Rugby, a game invented at a posh private school, is more natural.

I love the snobbish use of quotes around the word, “soccer”, when the term actually originated in England:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5335799/soccer-word-origin-england/?amp=true

Soccer, or “football”, is certainly “constantly flowing” in that players run up and down the field and people erupt into a frenzy when something almost happens. Actual goals, not so much.

But most of what I said is in jest. What most of the world knows as “football” is a great sport. Its minimal demands in the way of equipment and playing field make it an affordable sport in places where American football equipment would be a prohibitive cost. Still, we tend to enjoy most the games we learn growing up and where we have a known team that we root for. Even though Portland has a team, I don’t have the time or inclination to get involved with it.

 

[riverman]

Oh I've watched baseball - a lot more than you've watched cricket, I'd wager. And if forced, I guess I'd watch Baseball rather than "Football".

Also: not to defend Cricket, but there are over a billion fanatic Cricket fans in South Asia. And I guess the Japanese like Baseball.

I have family in New Zealand and Ireland as well as Taiwan....you don't see american football in any of those countries...for 20 years the sports channels I watched in Taiwan showed rugby, cricket, ping pong, squash, dart tournaments, martial arts and bowling mostly...basketball is still big there but NBA was only shown on Sundays when I lived there...soccer you could see daily...same with badminton, billiards, etc...baseball is popular in the Americas and Asia..I'd wager I've seen more Euro sports than you think I have.

 

[barfo]

Now ping pong, that's some boring-ass shit.

Same as the plus-size version, what do they call it? "Tennis", I think.

barfo

 

[riverman]

Now ping pong, that's some boring-ass shit.

Same as the plus-size version, what do they call it? "Tennis", I think.

barfo

ping pong rules but it's to fast to enjoy as a spectator sport...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I love the snobbish use of quotes around the word, “soccer”, when the term actually originated in England:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5335799/soccer-word-origin-england/?amp=true

Soccer, or “football”, is certainly “constantly flowing” in that players run up and down the field and people erupt into a frenzy when something almost happens. Actual goals, not so much.

I know the name originated in England - it originated among toffs, of which I am not one, and nobody uses the term there other than twats. Also, maybe it's just me, but reserving the name "football" for a game where you kick a ball with your foot, and not for a game where you throw an egg and run with it, just seems to make sense.

Also, I know you're joking, but the idea that only goals count as something "actually happening" is enraging.

But most of what I said is in jest. What most of the world knows as “football” is a great sport. Its minimal demands in the way of equipment and playing field make it an affordable sport in places where American football equipment would be a prohibitive cost. Still, we tend to enjoy most the games we learn growing up and where we have a known team that we root for. Even though Portland has a team, I don’t have the time or inclination to get involved with it.

I say again: the fact that you need fancy equipment at all to play American Football is what makes it so artificial. Does anyone play American Football "growing up" except under the supervision of adults at school? Sure you learn to throw a football back and forth, but actually playing the game? Contrast with basketball, for example. And of course:

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Now ping pong, that's some boring-ass shit.

Same as the plus-size version, what do they call it? "Tennis", I think.

Has anyone played Pickleball? It's legitimately fun!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[andalusian]

Has anyone played Pickleball? It's legitimately fun!

A lot of things that are fun to play are boring to watch. Tennis certainly falls in that category for me. World football (soccer) is the same. There might be constant flow but large portions of it are in the middle of the field with very little of interest happening.

I suspect that a lot of these things that are fun to watch are things you grew up with or do. I love F1 racing, but I am sure a lot of that is because I did a lot of track racing and i enjoy engineering. I never raced on ovals and do not care for nascar or 1/4 mile dirt racing - I suspect that if I did, I might enjoy watching it.

Can't stand baseball. I would rather watch the Canadian guys brooming ahead of cheese on ice than watch baseball. Cricket is a torture device, I am sure.

 

[e_blazer]

I know the name originated in England - it originated among toffs, of which I am not one, and nobody uses the term there other than twats. Also, maybe it's just me, but reserving the name "football" for a game where you kick a ball with your foot, and not for a game where you throw an egg and run with it, just seems to make sense.

Also, I know you're joking, but the idea that only goals count as something "actually happening" is enraging.



I say again: the fact that you need fancy equipment at all to play American Football is what makes it so artificial. Does anyone play American Football "growing up" except under the supervision of adults at school? Sure you learn to throw a football back and forth, but actually playing the game? Contrast with basketball, for example. And of course:

I know the name originated in England - it originated among toffs, of which I am not one, and nobody uses the term there other than twats. Also, maybe it's just me, but reserving the name "football" for a game where you kick a ball with your foot, and not for a game where you throw an egg and run with it, just seems to make sense.

Also, I know you're joking, but the idea that only goals count as something "actually happening" is enraging.



I say again: the fact that you need fancy equipment at all to play American Football is what makes it so artificial. Does anyone play American Football "growing up" except under the supervision of adults at school? Sure you learn to throw a football back and forth, but actually playing the game? Contrast with basketball, for example. And of course:

Rasta’s alter ego.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Rasta’s alter ego.

I have not seen the show other than a couple of clips, but I must say that the guy really struck me as the writer giving himself the part of the cool guy. I don't buy him as a professional footballer. (Somebody said that he's basically The Fonz, which may be a reference lost on some younger readers, but it resonated with me.)

Unlike THIS guy:


Who I remember from his unorthodox method of marking the young Paul Gascoigne:

 

[riverman]

Has anyone played Pickleball? It's legitimately fun!

I have...I love racket sports...ping pong, badminton, tennis, squash ..all fun....I play ping pong more than any other sport really...

 

[riverman]

I know the name originated in England - it originated among toffs, of which I am not one, and nobody uses the term there other than twats. Also, maybe it's just me, but reserving the name "football" for a game where you kick a ball with your foot, and not for a game where you throw an egg and run with it, just seems to make sense.

Also, I know you're joking, but the idea that only goals count as something "actually happening" is enraging.



I say again: the fact that you need fancy equipment at all to play American Football is what makes it so artificial. Does anyone play American Football "growing up" except under the supervision of adults at school? Sure you learn to throw a football back and forth, but actually playing the game? Contrast with basketball, for example. And of course:

for the record, I can't stand american football for all the reasons you said and more...too much equipment and 150 guys on a team...computer chip in the helmet so some guy in a booth tells you what to do every play...takes half an hour to run half a minute worth of action...penalty, penalty, penalty....it's a coaches game...in no other sport does the team need to huddle before every play and be told what to do.......in soccer a ball is all you need for a game...I feel the same about golf....too much equipment

 

[Rastapopoulos]