Printable View
Didn't see the incident, so no clue if or if not, but I do know who uses the name BettyBoop and well, they have probably seen more basketball than most people on this forum and probably you two arguing combined.
I do like the argument though, nothing wrong with 2 sides having different opinions.
Burton has some work to do!
But on a positive note, I saw them beginning to come together more as a team during the second game.
I think this tournament was their first game of the season due to the extended football season. But, I'm not sure that would fully explain their performance. The team really doesn't have any depth of roster and is relying one one or two playmakers.
I expect Burton to get better by the end of the season.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So does Burton stink or is it still football season for them?
[/ QUOTE ]
I take issue with how you saw it and the assumptions you're making concerning it. You're painting a picture of this particular kid as a "dirty player" to all who read this thread unduely. That's where I draw the line. That's why I take issue with you disagreeing.
And if I'm big enough to stand by what I saw and what I know to be the factual truth, and you're still standing on assumptions then that's your problem.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So now you're attacking someone with only 48 posts and a screename you don't like? Talking about questioning people's integrity. Our of curiosity, how far are you willing to go to try and validate an infraction made by this player?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey--your own medicine doesn't taste so good does it. Assumptions are not a smart thing to do there cvcgrad. Did you go there when they were a 2 year school or something? Yeesh...
And as for how far I'll go? I'm not validating anything. It is an infraction to hit the kid in the head with the ball (not the face as you've apparently imagined), wether it was an accident (as the case is) or intentional (as you think it to be). I've not denied that. I'm saying that it was a weak call by the official because that infraction is RARELY called when it really happens almost once or twice a game. I'm not questioning the rule, I'm questioning the timing of the application...and even at that, I gave the supposition that the atmosphere of the game with the prior T's on Grundy influenced that call. That was my original beef.
My beef now is that you're taking a kid you don't know from Adam, and basing your opinion of him as a ballplayer over one action on the court to anyone that cares to read this board...and all based on what you assume his intentions are. You can say that you think Coeburn's an excellent team all you want, but as long as you're giving that backhanded compliment by following it up with words like unsportsmanlike and dirty...I won't stand for that.
BTW--you're an agile individual--you dodged this question like a bullet:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...so what exactly are your allegiances there pal? Where are you from? What is your stake in this?
[/ QUOTE ]
...simple question for a college grad like you. Why not answer it instead of ignore it?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I expect Burton to get better by the end of the season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do as well mega, but there were two kids, one last night and the night before, that took an injury to the ankle and knee respectively. That's why they've only got 7 healthy on the bench now. I think there are only 9 varsity players for Burton--that's a shame. They're fully relying on Zo to make plays, and he's a good ballplayer, one of the fastest and court savvy there is round here, but he can't carry that squad, and he's not getting much help.
I don't personally know BettyBoop, but I'll take your word for it. She/he seemed to agree from their vantage point that it was a flagrant foul.
I was sitting not far from the timekeeper/scorekeepers table and heard two referees concur that it was in fact an "unsportsmanlike" foul. That would suggest to me that they at least believed it was not an "accident."
The "argument" seems to be whether or not it was intentional or if the foul should have been called against Coeburn at all. As far as the rules go, I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional. If a player hits another player in the head or face with a ball, it is a foul.
Maybe there are different rules that apply when Coeburn is playing?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Didn't see the incident, so no clue if or if not, but I do know who uses the name BettyBoop and well, they have probably seen more basketball than most people on this forum and probably you two arguing combined.
I do like the argument though, nothing wrong with 2 sides having different opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly enough, you're making the assumptions and don't even realize it.
I'm not "painting a picture of this particular kid as a dirty player". I believe the kid lost his cool and let his temper get the best of him. That doesn't make him a "dirty" player. It makes him human just like every other player on the court. But when emotions get out of control and tempers flare, players need to leave the game. It doesn't matter if its Coeburn, Grundy, Castlewood, Norton, Clintwood, or any other team playing.
When a player of this caliber and a team with the talent of Coeburn gets to that point, it is very unfortunate. Even more unfortunate are fans who seemingly want to justify it at any cost.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I take issue with how you saw it and the assumptions you're making concerning it. You're painting a picture of this particular kid as a "dirty player" to all who read this thread unduely. That's where I draw the line. That's why I take issue with you disagreeing.
And if I'm big enough to stand by what I saw and what I know to be the factual truth, and you're still standing on assumptions then that's your problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The "argument" seems to be whether or not it was intentional or if the foul should have been called against Coeburn at all. As far as the rules go, I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional. If a player hits another player in the head or face with a ball, it is a foul.
[/ QUOTE ]
No--that's not the argument--the argument is how you're saying it was intentional and that he was out to hurt the kid because he lost his temper. I asked Hollyfield what his intent was and his intent was to do a ball fake, not to spike the kid in the head, and he hadn't lost his temper. Regardless, it was a mistake and the correct call was made--I've not denied that once. The call was correct by rule...I'm just saying it's an obscure and rarely enforced rule...though it could be enforced a lot more often, and was pretty weak given the flow of the game.
It all boils down to this--you're assuming the kid lost his temper. You're assuming it was intentional. I actually went and did the groundwork to question what happened instead of assuming the intent, but yet you're disagreeing with the kid's word, saying that he would probably lie before admitting that he did it on purpose after the fact when nothing could happen to him. That's what gets me riled--calling someone out, saying they should have been tossed from a ball game because of your perceived intent, and when they say it wasn't something they meant to do, you call them a liar.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Even more unfortunate are fans who seemingly want to justify it at any cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
READ. I'm not justifying the action. Unintentional as it was, it was wrong and the correct call was made. However, the call is rarely made when it could be applied a lot more often in ballgames, which makes me question why it was called then, and when the kid told me the truth about what happened, I'm upset that other people won't take his word for it when it was HIS action regardless of what you think you saw. Only he knows what he was thinking--you don't, Bettyboop doesn't, Rocketer doesn't, George Bush doesn't, I don't...OH WAIT--actually I do because I asked the kid instead of assuming.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But when emotions get out of control and tempers flare, players need to leave the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the case then you also must believe along with whoever agrees with this comment that the Grundy kids who got the T's must have been tossed out too. You've got to do something unsportsmanlike 99% of the time to get a technical foul (1% for calling a TO when there are none remaining and having too many men on the court). That's the thing though--you keep going back to tempers...which I've seen Hollyfield's flare up since he was a boy--I know his temper, seen it in action. This particular incident wasn't temper, it was a ball fake gone wrong, but you go ahead and keep believing what you think and perceive to be true instead of Hollyfield's word.
This isn't a Coeburn bias thing--let's say one of the kids I know off of Clintwood, Burton, Wise, Pound, or Oak Hill's team would have had this called on them, and they got a technical. I would have asked them what happened with the play, and if they say "I meant to do it" then fine...they meant to do it and it they shoulda been tossed. If they tell me "I just pumped the ball too hard and couldn't stop it from bumping him on the head" then I'll believe them because only they know what they were thinking--the call of the technical is still deserved because it is rule, but by no means should they have been tossed. I wouldn't have assumed it was done on purpose in spite of their direct recollection of what happened and what their intent was.
And the refs must agree with my POV b/c I think a technical should have been called and Hollyfield not tossed b/c it was an unintentional infraction with no malice...and guess what. That's what happened.
So Pound plays Grundy tonight at 7?
I'll sort of defend the view that a_football_fan is taking, in that, there are rules that could be enforced regularly in games, that aren't and it does seem like referees sometimes get caught up in the atmosphere of a game, particularly if its getting physical, they have let some stuff go and its starting to get out of hand, they then try to go 180 degrees the other way and call something that hasn't been called all game or go overboard to try and pull the game back under control.
We're all victims of our perception, if you know someone or are pulling for a team, you see things one way when someone else may see it completely the other way.
The way it sounds, by the letter of the law, the play was called correctly, but by the letter of the law, a coach isn't out of his coaching box, and when we played Pound the other night, Jack Hamilton as much as I like him, was hardly in the coaching box. So yes, they could have called him for it, but the game never entered that dimension of a game, where the refs had missed some big calls, were hearing it, had probably let it get out of hand and was looking for something to either calm it down or stick it to the crowd who was probably giving it to them and make no mistake, the Coeburn crowd likes to make noise, and there are more than a few refs who get tired of having every call they make questioned by some 'kids' and they'll turn around and do something just to take the wind out of their sails.
That's one problem I have with crowds being 'loud for the sake of being loud'. I'm as critical of bad calls as anybody but when you are criticial of every call, no matter if its obvious or not, you don't do anything but hurt your team, because we have some refs who do not like to be shown up or embarassed.
I have heard a lot about this Evan Boiling kid. He evan told one of our player's that we didnt have anyone to shut him down. Well I seen him play last night and he was a "gamebreaker" please... the kid had 10 points. If thats your playmaker then u need to do something and try to get someone else the ball a little bit. Congrats to Kelly on their win last night though. It just kills me that he would talk about himself like that and then he cant back it up. I have seen him play twice and neither time was nothing great.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
because we have some refs who do not like to be shown up or embarassed.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you know about the game of basketball, and you're watching a ballgame and you see several missed calls by a particular ref, then you have every right to say "you missed that call" or let him know there was a walk or travel or foul...even booing them for several bad calls in a row is acceptable, IMO. I draw the line at cursing at the refs, or calling them out by name. That's the two no-no's in my book. The rest is fair game. If they don't like to be shown up or embarrassed, then they should make the correct calls when an infraction is made...not miss one then come back and make up for that one with another call that wasn't there...that's not a good referee, and that happens A LOT around here.
I try to keep the Crazies in check. When I hear one of the kids curse at them, I say something and make them stop. If they're getting to personal with a referee or a particular player, then I let them know and they stop. If they're questioning, say for example, a walk called against one of our kids, and the kid walked--then I'll turn around and tell them "dude, that was a walk...shut up and just cheer". The key thing is that when you're watching a game, if you're going to question a call a referee makes, make sure you know the rules of the game. Don't question something just because it's called against your team. Question it either because the call was there to be made and wasn't, or that there was no call to be made, but it was made to make up for the one they missed 5 minutes ago.
As for being loud for the sake of being loud--Coeburn's become a hard place to play due to the student/fan section and the noise they make...and about 95% of the noise made is purely cheering on the team with a "Defense" chant or a "Let's Go Blue Knights". Some other stuff is on a play by play basis, and you see people all the time spew off at the mouth with something that shouldn't be said either to a player or referee or coach. That's where I try to step in, keep the kids out of trouble, and keep the sportsmanship in it. It's just a whole new energy that's brought to the ballgame when the fans are into it, and Coeburn gets to channel off of that and use it for motivation. Ask any player OR coach on Coeburn's team, and they LOVE it. Home court advantage is golden when it comes to basketball...and Coeburn probably has the best homecourt advantage of anyone in the LPD...and yeah...sure, that's a little biased, but you can ask the kids if Coeburn is a tough place to play--there's more that'll tell you yes than no. Some opposing kids even find it fun--I know that Zo Miles is very fond of the Crazies...so apparently is DJ Barton from Council when he tossed a f#%* you our way...when we never cursed him once (kidding about Barton being fond, but not kidding bout the f-bomb). But some kids love the emotion...love the competition that's breeded by the energy...you either thrive in it or you wilt. It's an ultimate test.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I have heard a lot about this Evan Boiling kid. He evan told one of our player's that we didnt have anyone to shut him down.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard a lot about him too...and I watched him last night also. He would probably have been a mediocre player at Tennessee High had he stayed there, but in the LPD he's a good PG/SG. He's not the best, top 5 maybe in the district, but he's not the best. Even the better players have off-nights, and when you talk the talk you gotta walk the walk--or you'll hear it from the crowds. Just how it is. Good athlete and really good shooter, but not a great player (I still believe the best player on Kelly's team is Cody Bentley). He'll learn a LOT more about basketball and guard play especially under TJ McAmis.
That said I'll take any of Coeburn's guards over him any day of the week. Love the way Hollyfield, Adkins, and Lewis have played thus far this year.
And you're accusing me of making accusations?!?!?!
Please go back to the beginning of this post and show me one time when I said I believed Hollyfiend was trying to "hurt the kid." Did I once say that I thought the action was malicious?
If you really want to know what I think about something - and I don't think you do - all you have to do is ask. You don't have to read between any lines. I'll be happy to tell you.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
No--that's not the argument--the argument is how you're saying it was intentional and that he was out to hurt the kid because he lost his temper.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I believe his emotions got the best of him in the heat of a very intense game - a game in which Grundy was physically dominating Coeburn and playing with more aggression than they should have. Intent is a matter of perception. I'm sure Ryan didn't perceive that he did anything wrong. I should not have implied that he would lie about it. That was not fair, and my apologies to him. You have your perceptions, and I have mine. The referees ruled it an "unsportsmanlike" foul which by its very nature suggests that it was not accidental, at least in their opinions.
Out of curiousity, you asked Ryan what his intentions were. Did you ask the player who was hit whether he believed it was intentional? Did you talk to his parents or ask anyone from the Grundy team? Did you ask the referees why they perceived it to be "unsportsmanlike?"
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It all boils down to this--you're assuming the kid lost his temper. You're assuming it was intentional. I actually went and did the groundwork to question what happened instead of assuming the intent, but yet you're disagreeing with the kid's word, saying that he would probably lie before admitting that he did it on purpose after the fact when nothing could happen to him. That's what gets me riled--calling someone out, saying they should have been tossed from a ball game because of your perceived intent, and when they say it wasn't something they meant to do, you call them a liar.
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely believe that Grundy deserved their fouls. I stated so before, and I'll state it again. The players who drew the technical fouls for them should have been sent to the bench as well.
No bias here. What's good for Coeburn is good for Grundy.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
If this is the case then you also must believe along with whoever agrees with this comment that the Grundy kids who got the T's must have been tossed out too. You've got to do something unsportsmanlike 99% of the time to get a technical foul (1% for calling a TO when there are none remaining and having too many men on the court).
[/ QUOTE ]
Cvcgrad and A_football_fan in a steel cage match.. I would pay to see it [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Being as close to the Clintwood team as you are, no doubt you've seen some really bad calls. In the same situation, one ref might make a call while another ref will ignore it. It would be naive to believe that some refs don't have bias towards some teams and some fans.
Ironically last night, one of the refs did get very vocal with Jack and warn him to stay in the box.
Rules are rules, and in an ideal world they wouldn't be broken. But that's not realistic. When a rule is broken, the ref has a right to make the call even if he hasn't up to that point. To yell and scream at the refs might make you feel better, but it is stupid. It doesn't change anything.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The way it sounds, by the letter of the law, the play was called correctly, but by the letter of the law, a coach isn't out of his coaching box, and when we played Pound the other night, Jack Hamilton as much as I like him, was hardly in the coaching box. So yes, they could have called him for it, but the game never entered that dimension of a game, where the refs had missed some big calls, were hearing it, had probably let it get out of hand and was looking for something to either calm it down or stick it to the crowd who was probably giving it to them and make no mistake, the Coeburn crowd likes to make noise, and there are more than a few refs who get tired of having every call they make questioned by some 'kids' and they'll turn around and do something just to take the wind out of their sails.
[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO!
"Differences of opinion... imagine that!"
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Cvcgrad and A_football_fan in a steel cage match.. I would pay to see it
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I should not have implied that he would lie about it. That was not fair, and my apologies to him.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thank you in his stead. Easy enough wasn't it, instead of going on and on about how you knew what his intentions were anyways regardless of his word???
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Please go back to the beginning of this post and show me one time when I said I believed Hollyfiend was trying to "hurt the kid." Did I once say that I thought the action was malicious?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not verbatim but you implied it. If intent is all you need to make snap judgement, then all I need is implication to make an assertion. Doesn't feel too good to have words put in your mouth does it? If you don't like it, don't do it...life lesson for the day.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The players who drew the technical fouls for them should have been sent to the bench as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hollyfield was pulled for Matt Hall as soon as that happened. He was later put back into the game, as was #24 and #12 for Grundy after their technicals. For you having such a great vantage point of the game I would hope you would have seen that much.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Out of curiousity, you asked Ryan what his intentions were. Did you ask the player who was hit whether he believed it was intentional? Did you talk to his parents or ask anyone from the Grundy team? Did you ask the referees why they perceived it to be "unsportsmanlike?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Why ask them? Ryan knew what he was thinking, one way or the other, the kid or his parents or anyone else from Grundy didn't...they can't read his mind--and neither can you. He said it wasn't ill-willed or malicious. That's good enough for me, especially when the kid just got bonked on the head just barely with the ball since Ryan was trying to stop b/c he knew what was going to happen if he hit the kid with the ball fake. I didn't see the kid fall down and start holding his head and calling for the paramedics. As I've said before--if Ryan wanted to actually hurt the kid, there's other ways he could have went about it. Fact of the matter is, he didn't wanna hurt the kid, he didn't lose his temper, and it wasn't malicious. End of story.
And as I said before just about all technical fouls are "unsportsmanlike" in nature. Nothing different about this one being especially unsportsmanlike in comparison to the Grundy kids hanging on to the basketball or complaining/cussing the refs over calls they thought were bad.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
And you're accusing me of making accusations?!?!?!
[/ QUOTE ]
And you're accusing me of accusing you of making accusations?!?!?! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] LMAO
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Cvcgrad and A_football_fan in a steel cage match.. I would pay to see it [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a lover trio, not a fighter--just standing up for one of our youngins and trying to get the truth out there.
I want to go on record as saying I'm enjoying this discussion/argument and I have nothing personal against cvcgrad. Before this head to head, most of his posts have been very well-thought out and very contributional to the board--anyone who does that is alright in my book. It's okay to disagree with someone even if you respect them. Anyone who's seen my some odd 1000 other posts on these boards knows I'm up for argument/discussion as much as the next guy...so it's all good.
so...
when's the 500 buck three point shooting thing?
Probably at the halftime of the championship game tonight man--and that game's not until 8:30 I don't think. I'm not in it...I doinked 3 attempts last night during halftime of our ballgame...2 went short and the other one hit back iron...
If I'm correct the schedule should be as follows:
Burton/Ervinton @4
Coeburn/Clintwood @5:30
Pound/Grundy @7
Castlewood/Kelly @8:30 (with $500 half-court shot during halftime for all who qualified)
P.S.--Ya'll still owe me $1,000 from the Kiwanis Tourney...[img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
you headin over there tonite mang?
got a few days off of work and im thinkin about goin over there to check out all the games
what happened to the 3 point shooting machine known as Brad from the Kiwanis tournament man, you sinked the first one over there didnt ya? Take that up with pate man..haha, i was gonna stay over there myself until he wanted to leave
So Ryan's take on the situation is all that really matters? Sounds pretty one-sided to me. The referree's take doesn't matter? What about the coaches? Does it matter what they think?
You want an "end to the story?" Try this one. In a very "hectic," "intense" ballgame, a Coeburn player made a really bad decision by pump-faking a ball in a defenders face. He had nothing to gain from it. Two referees ruled it "unsportsmanlike" whether intentional or not. It sent Grundy to the foul line and gave them more momentum - as if they didn't have enough to begin with. Ultimately, Coeburn lost in a game they could have - and maybe should have - won.
What would have happened if this particular foul had not been made? No one really knows, but possible one of Coeburn's better players would have reamined on the court and possibly built more momentum for his team.
Who is to say what the outcome of the Coeburn - Grundy game might have been? I certainly can't. But its very possible that Coeburn would have won, went on to play Castlewood, and possibly played in the championship game instead of a consolation game.
There are consequences to everything we do in life. Coeburn got a taste of it Tuesday night, and Grundy got a taste of it last night.
End of Story.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why ask them? Ryan knew what he was thinking, one way or the other, the kid or his parents or anyone else from Grundy didn't...they can't read his mind--and neither can you. He said it wasn't ill-willed or malicious. That's good enough for me, especially when the kid just got bonked on the head just barely with the ball since Ryan was trying to stop b/c he knew what was going to happen if he hit the kid with the ball fake. I didn't see the kid fall down and start holding his head and calling for the paramedics. As I've said before--if Ryan wanted to actually hurt the kid, there's other ways he could have went about it. Fact of the matter is, he didn't wanna hurt the kid, he didn't lose his temper, and it wasn't malicious. End of story
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You want an "end to the story?" Try this one. In a very "hectic," "intense" ballgame, a Coeburn player made a really bad decision by pump-faking a ball in a defenders face. He had nothing to gain from it. Two referees ruled it "unsportsmanlike" whether intentional or not. It sent Grundy to the foul line and gave them more momentum - as if they didn't have enough to begin with. Ultimately, Coeburn lost in a game they could have - and maybe should have - won.
[/ QUOTE ]
The bolded portion is where we have agree to disagree. You keep saying he hit the kid in the face, I know he hit the kid in the top of the head with an over the head ball fake he didn't stop in time. The rest of it I'm in agreement with.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So Ryan's take on the situation is all that really matters? Sounds pretty one-sided to me. The referree's take doesn't matter? What about the coaches? Does it matter what they think?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the thing dude--it's not his "take on the situation" it''s his thought process and what he knew he intended to do or not do. He's the only one who truly knew his intent. He told me it wasn't intended to bump the kid in the head with the ball on the pass fake.
I could tell you I think from reading your posts that you're a green man from Mars who's just here to argue with me incessantly, but only you know what you actually are and could answer that question. If I asked you if you were a green man from Mars and you told me no, I'd have to take your word on it. If you told me that you were a green man from Mars, pursuant to the Patriot Act, I'd have to turn you in to the FBI...[img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Here's another life lesson for you--looks can be deceiving...you can't believe EVERYTHING you think you see.
This is a ridiculous argument based on truth versus numerous assumptions--just give it up dude...GEEZ...LOL
If he really thinks he's invincible, so to speak, he is in for a rude awakening. But, it doesn't take away from his talent. He is a very good player.
I do think he was a "gamebreaker" in the respect that he changed the momentum when he re-entered the game. If he had not, I'm not sure Wise would have beaten Pound.
As far as the number of points a player makes, that doesn't always tell the story of how much they contribute to a team. Jan Jindra from Council is a good example. He's not always a high scorer, but he is maybe the most intense player I've seen this year. He sets the pace for this team.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I have heard a lot about this Evan Boiling kid. He evan told one of our player's that we didnt have anyone to shut him down. Well I seen him play last night and he was a "gamebreaker" please... the kid had 10 points. If thats your playmaker then u need to do something and try to get someone else the ball a little bit. Congrats to Kelly on their win last night though. It just kills me that he would talk about himself like that and then he cant back it up. I have seen him play twice and neither time was nothing great.
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
you headin over there tonite mang?
got a few days off of work and im thinkin about goin over there to check out all the games
[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky dog, you're off work and all...I ain't. Gonna stay over in Abingdon tonight--I've seen too much of Dante, Sun, Trammel, Nora, McClure, and Fremont to do me for a while til I come back home in a couple of weekends.
Yell twice as hard for me. If a kid gets hit in the head with a ball fake, stand up and call for the technical...keep Pate off of Sloan as well...LOL [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Jan Jindra from Council is a good example. He's not always a high scorer, but he is maybe the most intense player I've seen this year. He sets the pace for this team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point & I agree Jindra's an active player, but D.J. Barton stirs the drink for that squad. If not for his scoring, "ability to draw fouls" for lack of a better word, and free throw shooting, Council's not a threat for regions.
And no, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing w/you cvcgrad--just my take on Council since I've seen em play Coeburn twice.
Heard some talk at the tourny and wanted to ask here.
Is the kid from Kelly, I dont even remember his name, is he in teh same league with a Jessie McMurry, Brayn Bentley, Brandon Green, Zack Moore or a Doub Campbell?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I said it last night and I'll say it on here...if you were to make a top 10 in the region, Grundy and Council are in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to actually watch some of the other teams in the region play before you decide what teams are in the top 10. (Just because a team beats Coeburn doesn't make them special) For example, St. Paul drilled Council by 20 last night!
We will definitely have to "agree to disagree." You yourself stated that 99% of all technical fouls are for "unsporstmanlike" conduct. I'm not sure how anyone - a player or fan for that matter - can accidentally be unsporstmanlike. It seems to me that it takes some forethought or complete lack of thought. In this case, I think emotions ruled.
You seemed to have thought process that there's really only one side to the story, ie what Ryan intended. I am a former journalist, and I am trained to understand and realize that there is always more than one side to any story. I look at every situation from the perspective of everyone who is affected. So, yes the perception of the other player, other fans, referrees, coaches, etc are just as important as your perception or mine for that matter.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The bolded portion is where we have agree to disagree. You keep saying he hit the kid in the face, I know he hit the kid in the top of the head with an over the head ball fake he didn't stop in time. The rest of it I'm in agreement with.
[/ QUOTE ]
i'll keep em all in check man, has everybody been comin to the games from the crazies?? Which reminds me, Sloan is able to play now, i didnt know how long he was gonna stay out, but he is playing? I figured he'd stay out for a week or two...
a little off subject, but im glad to see coeburn putting up some high scores this year, not seen many high scores as much as there used to be, last year was pretty bad too, with a lot of games only having 60-70 combined points. We've put up some good numbers, not real high, but some good scores: 48,79,78,65,60,60,66,and 83, not too bad
And from the looks of things, i definitely see Adkins scoring his 1000 in his career, that boy can ball
good game last night by a few of my boys: Ogre had 24 points and 15 boards, adkins had 19 points, pate had 18, and hollyfield had 9 assists
Barton is the better shooter, but someone has to make plays happen. I think Jindra gives the team a level of confidence they would not have had otherwise, having lost Goodson. I am still very impressed with Jindra's intensity and focus when he plays. When he's on the court, you know that anything can happen at most anytime.
My perspective on Council comes from watching them in the Kiwanis Tournament where they dessimated Clintwood and narrowly beat Haysi who I think has one of the best 3pt shooters in Southwest Virginia.
I also think its way too early to predict who might be a contender for the regionals. There's a lot of basketball games to be played including some upsets.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Good point & I agree Jindra's an active player, but D.J. Barton stirs the drink for that squad. If not for his scoring, "ability to draw fouls" for lack of a better word, and free throw shooting, Council's not a threat for regions.
And no, I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing w/you cvcgrad--just my take on Council since I've seen em play Coeburn twice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know that you could say he is the same league. But, he is very good in his own right.
On a side note, I think McMurray is probably the best 3-pt shooter to come out of Southwest VA in a long time. I'm not sure anyone could match up with him on that particular aspect.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Heard some talk at the tourny and wanted to ask here.
Is the kid from Kelly, I dont even remember his name, is he in teh same league with a Jessie McMurry, Brayn Bentley, Brandon Green, Zack Moore or a Doub Campbell?
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
We will definitely have to "agree to disagree." You yourself stated that 99% of all technical fouls are for "unsporstmanlike" conduct. I'm not sure how anyone - a player or fan for that matter - can accidentally be unsporstmanlike. It seems to me that it takes some forethought or complete lack of thought. In this case, I think emotions ruled.
You seemed to have thought process that there's really only one side to the story, ie what Ryan intended. I am a former journalist, and I am trained to understand and realize that there is always more than one side to any story. I look at every situation from the perspective of everyone who is affected. So, yes the perception of the other player, other fans, referrees, coaches, etc are just as important as your perception or mine for that matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Accidentally unsportsmanlike happens. Kind of like when there's a 15 yard face mask penalty when you're trying to grab a ball carrier's pads and your hand gets caught in the face mask, turns the head of the ball carrier, and the ref throws the flag, though your actual intent was to grab the guy's shoulder pad. It's called a personal foul, though it was unintentional. Happens all the time. Same thing in basketball man--perception is NOT reality. Being an ex journalist you ought to know that. Another situation--a pitcher's having a bad day on the mound. His go to pitch isn't working, so he tries to mix in a curveball that doesn't curve on accident and plunks the batter. Did he hit the batter on purpose or did the curveball just not curve? You don't know unless you ask. As Rock said--a coach leaving the bounds of the coach's box...accidentally losing track of where he/she's at on the sidelines and getting a technical foul. Lots of ways it can happen...but you just wanna give this kid the scarlet "T" and eject him. That's pretty one-sided if you ask me.
As for everyone's perception mattering, I disagree...no one's perception of what happened matters because Ryan knew the intent from square 1. Everyone else judged given visual evidence and not knowing what he did or did not intend to do. Once again, only he knows his mind, and his mind controls his body, and his body made the action. That's the chain of events. No one else made him do what he did on accident. It was reactionary and unfortunate--it happens...so were you a sports journalist or an actual player? If you've ever played the game, you know that there's times where you try for the steal, smack the guys arm, but you were going for the ball. A foul is called. Should the kid be denigrated and tossed from the game because he tried to hurt the ball handler's arm, or was he merely going for the steal? Same type of deal. Instead of saying "complete lack of thought", reactionary would probably be a better term when thinking of sports. Because sometimes a person makes an athletic move in reaction or out of habit, and it causes a foul or infraction unwantingly. It happens.
For an ex-journalist you've acted pretty narrow-mindedly instead of trying to see a point I'm making here. You're accusing me of making excuses for the kid when there's no excuse to be made. He committed the foul, but not due to malice, contrary to your yellow journalistic approach here in this thread. That's the only thing I take issue with is that you're implying he had ill-will towards the player when he said as much to the contrary. Quit looking for a conspiracy theory and trust the kid's word.
And just because you're trained to see all the sides to every story doesn't mean I've not already tried to see the sides to every story. Only one side of the story has the truth on it's side and it's directly from the person that committed the infraction. Everything else is discretionary and basically a guessing game. I'll take the side with the truth on it against any perceptions. The perceptions make for interesting reading, but not a lot of substance when it comes to what actually happened.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You might want to actually watch some of the other teams in the region play before you decide what teams are in the top 10. (Just because a team beats Coeburn doesn't make them special) For example, St. Paul drilled Council by 20 last night!
[/ QUOTE ]
Gee that's nice. One game. Let's just go ahead and give St. Paul the Region D title right now.
I never said they were the best 2 teams in the region Widespread...I just said they were top 10. I don't really see how you can argue with that much given both wins that the teams have had this year and the talent on those teams. Your 4 best teams in the region right now are probably Twin Valley, Twin Springs, Castlewood, and Gate City, with probably St. Paul (not necessarily in that order either). For the next 5 you gotta think that Coeburn's in there, and then I don't see how you keep Grundy and Council out of any of those last 5 spots.
Who's your top 10, if you wanna be smart about it and say that Grundy & Council's not in it?
nobility...
Kid's good, but he's not that good. Those guys you mentioned were pretty good all-around basketball players...this guy has issues handling the ball and running an offense from the point. His perimeter jumper is all he's got. Think Stevie Niece, but with less potential & consistency, IMO.
No doubt, agree with you about the refs. There are some that I see out on the floor and you think you'll get a good fairly called consistent game. Then there are others who you wonder what side of the bed they got up on, whats on tv that they might try to make it home for, if they remember getting showed up a coach in college, etc etc etc. A game would take forever if they called everything, and truthfully, I'd rather have the refs let teams play a bit more. I'm sure if Nola gets on, he or others can tell you that they do allow a bit more physical nature come playoff time. I also wish that refs didn't have the build in foul even up system. It is absolutely horrible and makes it hard for the coaches to coach a team when they ignore a hard foul early and call a touch foul late because the foul totals are uneven. We had a game this year, no fouls I think through the third period. The opponent had 6 I think. Within 1.34 in the fourth quarter, we picked up 7 fouls. Now I'm sure that a few of those were call-worthy, but a few others were things that had went on the rest of the game but suddenly they got called. Also, since the other team had 6 for a few minutes, they could have just about committed battery and not gotten called [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] However like you said, its not a perfect world. (By the way, as long as there is room on the sides, I personally hate the coaching box, or think its a bit to small. I have no problem when a coach is working hard on the sidelines)
Yellow journalism huh? Some might say that is an intentional and childish insult. But, by your standards, only you know your intent and my perception wouldn't matter?
You couldn't be more wrong about there only being "one truth" to any story. There is always another perspective.
For the record, I never stated or implied, contrary to what you might think, that Hollyfiend intended to harm the defender or had ill will towards him. You're jumping to that conclusion all on your own. I said it was unsportsmanlike and unnecessary. Hollyfield is a better player and Coeburn is a better team than that.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
For an ex-journalist you've acted pretty narrow-mindedly instead of trying to see a point I'm making here. You're accusing me of making excuses for the kid when there's no excuse to be made. He committed the foul, but not due to malice, contrary to your yellow journalistic approach here in this thread. That's the only thing I take issue with is that you're implying he had ill-will towards the player when he said as much to the contrary. Quit looking for a conspiracy theory and trust the kid's word.
And just because you're trained to see all the sides to every story doesn't mean I've not already tried to see the sides to every story. Only one side of the story has the truth on it's side and it's directly from the person that committed the infraction. Everything else is discretionary and basically a guessing game. I'll take the side with the truth on it against any perceptions. The perceptions make for interesting reading, but not a lot of substance when it comes to what actually happened.
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Yellow journalism huh? Some might say that is an intentional and childish insult. But, by your standards, only you know your intent and my perception wouldn't matter?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh please...thicken up that skin if you want to last long on the board dude...you opened that up by bringing up that you used to be a journalist. Calm down and take a lil jab when it's left wide open like that.
I'm done discussing it--you can think it was temper and look at it from one billion perspectives and spin it how you want it. I told it how it is and was and remains to be.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You couldn't be more wrong about there only being "one truth" to any story. There is always another perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't mean it's the correct perspective.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
For the record, I never stated or implied, contrary to what you might think, that Hollyfiend intended to harm the defender or had ill will towards him. You're jumping to that conclusion all on your own. I said it was unsportsmanlike and unnecessary. Hollyfield is a better player and Coeburn is a better team than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that's the case, then see how wrong people can be when the jump to conclusions given a certain perspective? Things get twisted very easily. That's what I'm asking you to be wary of.
You have hurt me to my heart! I have only 49 posts. WOW! I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. I've just been there, done that, and bought the soundtrack, as we used to say.
See you today. I'll be the gray haired lady. Most anyone from Clintwood will tell which one is me. All I have to look for is a crazy 4 Coeburn. Remember you said that, I didn't. LOL!
I don't think that is what the poster was saying.
The point was that it's way too early to be picking top 10 teams and speculating on who will win the Region D championship. Defeating or losing to one specific team would not necessarily determine how the season is going to go.
Last year's Region D tourney should be a lesson to everyone. Pound lost twice to both Clintwood and Powell Valley during the season only to come back and elminate both teams from the LPD tournament and win a spot in the Region D tourney.
Any of the teams you've mentioned in the "top 10" could crash and burn by the end of the season.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Gee that's nice. One game. Let's just go ahead and give St. Paul the Region D title right now.
I never said they were the best 2 teams in the region Widespread...I just said they were top 10. I don't really see how you can argue with that much given both wins that the teams have had this year and the talent on those teams. Your 4 best teams in the region right now are probably Twin Valley, Twin Springs, Castlewood, and Gate City, with probably St. Paul (not necessarily in that order either). For the next 5 you gotta think that Coeburn's in there, and then I don't see how you keep Grundy and Council out of any of those last 5 spots.
Who's your top 10, if you wanna be smart about it and say that Grundy & Council's not in it?
[/ QUOTE ] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]