If the refs called everything by the book (specifically with illegal screens), KG would foul out of virtually every game he plays. But if you look, he rarely fouls out. He fouled out once this season. He fouled out once last season. And so on and so forth. And that play with LeBron is nothing close to the way KG sets picks.
You're actually speaking for what most people would ignore or not ignore? If they are ignoring the actual words in the poll, why does their vote matter? Just because you agree with the results?
No, because the obvious intent of the poll is asking whether or not you agree with the call. Most did not agree with the call. That was my point. You can argue about the wording all you want but the poll is asking whether people agree with the call. As is obvious, it was far from a clear cut call.
The English language disagrees. The poll specifies why the fouls were agreeable or disagreeable. I'll go ahead and play your mass-mind-reading game. Most wouldn't know why a moving screen constitutes a foul. NBA.com provided them with a link to the replay and criteria in a poll in order to try to decide. Based on a poll worded in a manipulative manner, coupled with your faith in the stupidity of the voters. Great point. I think it's pretty obvious that this stupid poll that you are putting so much stock in is telling the voters why the foul was called. Oh yeah, they didn't read the poll, that's right. That makes it okay. Yeah, obvious to people that don't take the time to read a poll that their extremely valid opinion will be included in.
He was just one example I used. Is that you, junc? The fact is, games are not called based on the rulebook a lot of the time. As for the poll: It was very simple, this is what it asked. "Foul Or No Foul: Did They Get It Right On LeBron's Sixth Foul?" Over 42,000 votes submitted, and 38.51% say "good call". You keep trying to twist the poll based on wording you disagree with, but the poll is asking good call or bad call and you can see what the results say. Simple. Again, less than 39% agree with the call, and you want to say it was a clear cut foul. It was not. I read the articles written after the game, I listened to what the announcers had to say. The fact is, the majority of people disagreed with the call. It was obviously not a clear cut foul.
You keep on lending validity to a poll that you admittedly think people voted on by impulse. You will never win this argument. Not against me, anyway. Because your point is not something that makes actual sense when you include actual details that you are determined to omit. And, as always, in favor of the shallow, superstar-driven agenda of David Stern.
:breakdance: Back to conspiracies again. Thank you. I did win the argument, because when you bring up your David Stern stuff again, that means you are conceding the debate. As you conceded the debate earlier, when you were arguing Tony Allen's foul was not reviewed and that he shot free throws immediately after. The poll was simple. Black and white. Was it a good call or not. It shows you are wrong.
I guess you figured out that your argument was legless. Thanks for grabbing onto that little piece of bait I threw in at the end to help you escape the actual argument. Enjoy your ill-perceived victory. Edit: I haven't interacted much with you since I shooed you away shortly after you registered here, but this small argument tells me a lot about you. Probably more than you want it to.
No, you did. I already proved you wrong, and you tried to seize onto meaningless wording to save yourself. You failed. Again. That's an outright lie. As is this. No one ever "shooed me away." The fact that you need to be told about me tells me a lot about you. I've been posting here for a very long time. How dense are you, exactly? I've been posting this way for 9 years. I've been told all I need to know about anyone who has been posting regularly at TGG since I arrived here. More than I want it to? It conveyed exactly what I intended to convey, as can be seen from that response.
I don't think that you have a very good grasp on what it takes to actually prove anything. Unless you think it means to completely ignore any other rationale but your own... then I guess you are a champion. But other than that, you are just one of those desperate arguers that really can't counter the argument facing them, and their best defense is to declare themselves victorious and avoid the actual argument. Ha! Prove me wrong any way you can. Because I have had very little relative interaction with you, to, say, anyone in the Jets forum. I barely know who you are. Just some guy that obsesses over gambling and how it pertains to professional sports. I did. Maybe you've forgotten it already, but I remember your nick showing up in the early stages, you kissing my heels, and I'm thinking 'is this Badger or somebody making a play on the term Yes-Man? Because I have no idea who the fuck this guy is that is kissing my ass." No matter, it was a long time ago and I was just using it to illustrate a point. Dense? Awww. You stay mainly outside the Jets forum. Either that, or your football posts are forgettable. I spend most of my time there. Maybe it's news to you.
the problem with that poll is the question itself, which is actually two different questions. one, is it a foul or not a foul? that is an absolute question that is not open to interpretation, it is dependent on the rule itself. by the rule it was a foul. and the second question, did they get it right? now you are talking about an opinion? by the book it could be a foul, and yet someone can think they should not have called it, as you have argued because it was ticky-tack. a ticky-tack foul is still a foul. anyone who argues it was not a foul is wrong. that is a foul by the rule and a foul that is called all of the time. LeBron should not be an exception, especially when he is attempting to get an advantage with the game on the line by illegal means. whether the refs should call fouls that are fouls is another argument entirely. the poll itself is confused in what it is asking and what it wants answered and thus it is meaningless.
Hey now, lets not confuse the simplicity of the more simplified version of the simple poll that wasn't simple. This is his entire premise for this argument. Totally obvious that people knew what the simple poll was about.
You're the one avoiding the argument. I already proved you wrong. Would you like more links to articles discussing the call, and about how it was hardly clear cut? You keep dodging and post BS about "shooing people away", like I care about what you did in your little mind. We've had a lot of interaction. That's a fact. You have a terrible memory. That never happened. I never kissed anyone's heels or ass, and if I did, it certainly wouldn't be yours. It would be someone with a clue about sports. Good job inventing stuff again. But hey, you've already proven that your memory is lacking. You were arguing with me that there was no review of a flagrant foul! I've made thousands of posts in the Jets forum. You are wrong again.
With 10:50 in the 2nd quarter, Lebron James finally attacks the paint and puts up a shot. Mario Chalmers has attacked Hibbert with reckless abandon and it's worked. Hibbert and Paul George are cooking
