dtgold88
Well-Known Member
yeah...because that's the same thing.So don't have a rule. Should players should be allowed to shoot at the 25 second mark even though the shot clock is 24?
yeah...because that's the same thing.So don't have a rule. Should players should be allowed to shoot at the 25 second mark even though the shot clock is 24?
admittedly, I never even knew it was a rule.That is different.
We are talking about a free throw.
Karl Malone used to take about 13 seconds to shoot his. This rule has nothing to do with the flow of play and it has been very loosely enforced for my entire life watching the game.
Right? If they DID call it that would be more like "picking and choosing".This isn’t a David Silver thing.
LOL.
You guys are acting like the NBA is the only league where refs don’t count 10 seconds on FTs.
I have watched basketball all my life and I have seen a 10 second FT violation maybe twice.
and that's fine, but this is the other way around from what you (or maybe it was Trojan?) said.....calling a violation on this would be more like "picking and choosing".I really don’t care about it, I was making a general comment about silvers lack of being able to even act like he cares what the league looks like.
The idea these are the examples you come up with should show you how absurd your argument is...but it wont.Yeah, until it's enforced. If it's going to be a rule, enforce it. If it's not going to be enforced, get rid of it. It's really that simple. Maybe we should count shots that are released within tenths of a second of the shot clock expiring. After all, it's only there to keep teams from using a 4 corners offense.
Ya know, just enforce it if teams start taking like 28 or 30 seconds to shoot.
the point is because actually abusing it would be taking 30 or maybe even 20 seconds. Not 11-12.I'll ask again what is the point of the rule if you allow people to abuse it? Imagine if with 8 second violation, they allowed guys to cross halfcourt with 13 or 14 on the shot clock?
Normally i wouldn't even care if it is enforced or not but when the fans are counting? It needs to be enforced. Imagine this scenario. Game 7 in Brooklyn and Giannis get fouled with 1 second left in the 4th of a 1 point Brooklyn lead. The crowd counts up to 12 or 13 on both ft attempts which Giannis ends up hitting to eliminate Brooklyn.
and if they enforced a rule they never enforce (on a small market team) that wouldn't make people think rigged?Same. I really don't care. But, when you have a 10 seconds per free throw rule, fans are counting past 10 seconds, folks are reporting on Twitter that a player is taking 11+ seconds and the refs aren't calling it, it's a bad look that feeds the "rigged games" narrative.
Imo, if it's important enough that they made a rule, the rule should be enforced. If they don't want to enforce it, get rid of it or tweak it.
The idea these are the examples you come up with should show you how absurd your argument is...but it wont.
You want to get rid of it and allow 30 seconds if that's what a player wants?
ust curious...if you got pulled over for going 46 in a 45 MPH zone are you just telling the officer, "it's the rules...thanks for keeping the roads safer"?
and if they enforced a rule they never enforce (on a small market team) that wouldn't make people think rigged?
People who think the league is rigged do not have trouble finding things to support their agenda no matter how absurd.
In order....That makes no sense.
If they're not going to enforce it, get rid of it or tweak it, it's really not that difficult.
Talk about absurd. You got any actual basketball examples?
cool. Enjoy the series.Seeing all the Bucks twitter celebration/trolling about a first round victory for a team that should have expectations to win the title made the decision for me.
Hoping the Nets mop the floor with them in 5 games
You'd feed the narrative more by making the call there than if you don't.I agree. But why feed the narrative if you don't have to?
You'd feed the narrative more by making the call there than if you don't.