mjgreatxii
Banned
- Mar 7, 2007
- 2,583
- 153
We'll take wiggins after you guys rent him for his early yearsIf only they can suck one more season and draft a wiggins...my god
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We'll take wiggins after you guys rent him for his early yearsIf only they can suck one more season and draft a wiggins...my god
Its really too much. Two free fouls and the ball back is too much for just a regular foul. You're taking away a layup/dunk with a clear path so give them the opportunity to get those points back and end it there.Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
Man, you know misery loves company lolI have never hated a player as much as i hate lilliard right now. Just give up already! You are playing for nothing!!! Grrrrrrrr
Let's examine that play. Lillard was beat on the play and Kobe was clearly going to score a 2-point basket. Instead of attempting to play D, Lillard just fouled him. If they called a reach-in, it rewards the defensive player for not attempting to play D and it takes away the 2 points that would have most certainly been scored.Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
The fact that they get the ball back is my real issue with it though, it makes the penalty far too steep.Let's examine that play. Lillard was beat on the play and Kobe was clearly going to score a 2-point basket. Instead of attempting to play D, Lillard just fouled him. If they called a reach-in, it rewards the defensive player for not attempting to play D and it takes away the 2 points that would have most certainly been scored.Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
Giving 2 FTs + the ball prevents defenders from gaining an advantage by fouling.
This. It's treated like a flagrant 2, minus the ejection. I understand it, but it seems excessive.The fact that they get the ball back is my real issue with it though, it makes the penalty far too steep.Let's examine that play. Lillard was beat on the play and Kobe was clearly going to score a 2-point basket. Instead of attempting to play D, Lillard just fouled him. If they called a reach-in, it rewards the defensive player for not attempting to play D and it takes away the 2 points that would have most certainly been scored.Can someone explain what's the point of having the clear path foul? Why is it considered special and not a simple reach-in foul?
Giving 2 FTs + the ball prevents defenders from gaining an advantage by fouling.
Kobe's statline
not eem MJ could do that