Game Thread: Heat @ Celtics – POSTPONED

[SuperDeluxe]

Sometimes I will watch a game and everything is cool. Then I check into the gamethread and it's like OMG HORRIBLE WTF JESUS THAT GUY R U SERIOUS BENCH HIM AWFUL AGHGHGH and I'm like uhh the score is 63-62 did I miss something?

I have started experimenting with not paying attention to the game thread. I think I enjoy the games more. Less stress over nothing.

[DarkAzcura]

Sometimes I will watch a game and everything is cool. Then I check into the gamethread and it's like OMG HORRIBLE WTF JESUS THAT GUY R U SERIOUS BENCH HIM AWFUL AGHGHGH and I'm like uhh the score is 63-62 did I miss something?

I have started experimenting with not paying attention to the game thread. I think I enjoy the games more. Less stress over nothing.

I’ve had a pretty strict policy of avoiding game threads for close to 10 years now, heh.

[SMTBSI]

Game threads are tough enough to get thru for me. Do we have to argue the merits of the coach here before the game? I came here to see what everyone thought about who plays today, not yet another rehash of how horrible Danny and or Brad are. I am not the biggest contributer to this board but i have been here reading, a lot, for along time. Finding myself staying away for longer and longer each time

This is the problem. Good posters leave, so the board gets worse, so more good posters leave, so the board gets worse. It accelerates. This is how forums become ghost towns.

Please stick around.

Actually, i like the different characters here in our board. It makes it more fun and interesting. Just imagine if every posters are alike? No complaining, every one agreeing with each other, all are homers and team fanatics. That would be so boring and dull. Just look at other team’s board, not much action in there, even on a game day. I’m glad we have different personalities here. It makes our board fun. Other boards are boring, that’s why their fans/posters goes to the GB for action. At least we try to remain respectful with each other, and our mods are quick to react when things gets testy. So o respectfully disagree Now, if you are too sensitive to hear or read complaints against Brad and Danny, then this is not the place for you. We are all Celtics fans here ao everyone is good

PS. Try to go to the raps board. They have the biggest number of posters there, and they are allowed to say some things to each other, (like you are the worst, dumbest, etc), which i find funny though, at least nobody really does that here i think. My point is, they have an even bigger group than ours, and their board is as alive as ours. Much better than those boring ass boards!

I read every team board on this site that has activity, as well as the GB, T&T, PC, etc. As well as a couple other sports forums around the net. I promise you, we are nowhere near to the dull homer board you describe. Much closer to the opposite. There's plenty of diversity of opinion here, and the "realists" and critics have all the say they desire, despite their claims to the contrary.

A lot of good posters have left over the years because of how negative our GTs are. I've come close a few times myself. There's just no joy in participating half the time. 40, 50, 60 negative posts in a row, the moment the team goes down by 10. Get called a "pink hat" if you dare to imagine we can make a comeback. Get called an Ainge "ball washer" if you're okay with the place the team is at.

The only reason I'm still here is because, as I said above, the more positive posters leave, the worse it will get for those who remain. Before long, the "realists" will have no one to talk to but themselves. Diversity of thought will in fact be gone. In my experience on other forums over the years, the end stage of that is not them coexisting happily in peace and harmony, but instead them all eventually wandering off themselves once they have no one left to argue with. Ghost town.

Now, if you are too sensitive to hear or read complaints against Brad and Danny, then this is not the place for you.

It will not take you very much effort to search my posting history for criticisms of Stevens. This is the problem: this broad brushstroke painting of other posters. The quick-twitch character judgments without even asking the poster their positions on a subject.

What you describe in this quote is not what's happening. And you're not the judge of whether this is the place for me or not.

[tlee324]

Sometimes I will watch a game and everything is cool. Then I check into the gamethread and it's like OMG HORRIBLE WTF JESUS THAT GUY R U SERIOUS BENCH HIM AWFUL AGHGHGH and I'm like uhh the score is 63-62 did I miss something?

I have started experimenting with not paying attention to the game thread. I think I enjoy the games more. Less stress over nothing.

I’ve had a pretty strict policy of avoiding game threads for close to 10 years now, heh.

Nooo I love the game threads lol

[Curmudgeon]

LOL, the Heat knew they couldn't deal with Tacko and chickened out.

[DarkAzcura]

I have started experimenting with not paying attention to the game thread. I think I enjoy the games more. Less stress over nothing.

I’ve had a pretty strict policy of avoiding game threads for close to 10 years now, heh.

Nooo I love the game threads lol

Actually started as more of a jinxing thing. I don’t think we have ever won a game where I posted in the game thread. The whole 5 times.

[Taget]

Sometimes I will watch a game and everything is cool. Then I check into the gamethread and it's like OMG HORRIBLE WTF JESUS THAT GUY R U SERIOUS BENCH HIM AWFUL AGHGHGH and I'm like uhh the score is 63-62 did I miss something?

Both the fun and downside of the game thread is it is moment to moment. Either everything is going right or the sky is falling second to second. I rarely post in them because I can't keep up, distracts me from watching the actual game, and sometimes you just don't need that constant noise of emotions piled on to your own.

But the important thing to remember is take it about as seriously as you would a bunch of friends screaming at the tv set during the game.

[Ernest]

I'm pretty sure there's such a rule. I forget whether extra fouls by a fouled-out player carry an extra penalty of some kind.

You can't foul out if the team doesn't have enough to put 5 guys on the floor. ie it will never be a hockey power play. I think you just keep the last guy out there and its A T for every foul after that. Been watching forever and I've never seen it happen though. Having 6 vs 5 on the court is more likely in my experience.

The T for each extra foul is exactly what I was thinking too.

What happens if you only have 5 guys and then someone gets really hurt though? A friend asked me this today and I don't really know. Could there ever be a situation where a team has to sit a player at half court or out of bounds and play 4 on 5? Can a team just forfit a game part way through. I've never seen these things and I'm sure the league wouldn't let it get to that, but it's interesting.

[bisme37]

That game was booooring.

[SMTBSI]

You can't foul out if the team doesn't have enough to put 5 guys on the floor. ie it will never be a hockey power play. I think you just keep the last guy out there and its A T for every foul after that. Been watching forever and I've never seen it happen though. Having 6 vs 5 on the court is more likely in my experience.

The T for each extra foul is exactly what I was thinking too.

What happens if you only have 5 guys and then someone gets really hurt though? A friend asked me this today and I don't really know. Could there ever be a situation where a team has to sit a player at half court or out of bounds and play 4 on 5? Can a team just forfit a game part way through. I've never seen these things and I'm sure the league wouldn't let it get to that, but it's interesting.

I don't think there's anything in the rule books against playing 4-on-5 (Edit3: wrong on this point - see next post). And, you can forfeit at any time, for any reason. What's the league going to do if you walk off the court, go and physically drag you back and force you to play, propping your limp, non-compliant bodies up like puppets?

I think you basically just have the choice at that point, to keep playing 4-on-5 or forfeit.

I'm just guessing, but I would also expect that if you're down to only five players due to players fouling out, then one of those players get injured, then one of the fouled out players would just come back in, and then you'd be subject to the technical rule as before. It's the only thing that makes sense.



edit: Here's a game that actually happened, with a fouled out played coming back in after an "injury".

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201004140POR.html

Write-up from the first link I clicked on (Quora), but I have no reason to believe it's inaccurate because it matches the tale told by the box score:

One time, way back early in Stephen Curry’s career, the Golden State Warriors had a slew of injuries, so much so that they only had 6 healthy players. But NBA rules state that you must have 8 players dressed to play in a game, so two injured players were on the Bench.

The game went OK until an uninjured Warriors player got injured. This put the Warriors players down to 5 uninjured players. The uninjured players had to play the entire remainder of the game. But then, that didn’t go to plan. A Warriors player fouled out. So game over right?

So in the NBA, there’s a rule that if there is less than 5 players left able to play in a game uninjured, then the fouled out player can continue playing. This is what the Warriors coach said (He must have read up on the rules after realizing he could run into this situation). But the refs disagreed. The refs said that because the Warriors had players on the bench dressed to play (The injured players) that the Warriors had other players that they could play. So the already-injured Warriors players came off the bench, faked the injuries they already had, and went out of the game injured. After this, the refs let the fouled-out player back into the game.

Amazingly, the Warriors actually won that game, even as a sub .500 team facing a team above .500.

edit2:

Here's the play-by-play:

https://www.espn.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=300414022

Devean George fouls out with his 6th foul at 4:47 left in the 4th, then re-enters at 3:29 left to play.

[SMTBSI]

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-3-players-substitutes-and-coaches/

Section I—Team

a. Each team shall consist of five players. A player is disqualified from the game when he receives his sixth personal foul. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been dis-qualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.

b In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re- entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul.

It does not specify what happens in the case where a team no longer has five eligible players at all. Only two logical options seem a forfeit, or activating a formerly non-eligible player (like an Evan Turner coach-to-player situation). The latter seems extremely unlikely, so it must be a forfeit.

[Parliament10]

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-3-players-substitutes-and-coaches/

Section I—Team

a. Each team shall consist of five players. A player is disqualified from the game when he receives his sixth personal foul. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been dis-qualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.

b In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re- entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul.

It does not specify what happens in the case where a team no longer has five eligible players at all. Only two logical options seem a forfeit, or activating a formerly non-eligible player. The latter seems extremely unlikely, so it must be a forfeit.

The last 5 Players cannot foul out, no matter how many fouls they have.
If one of those players in subsequently injured, then the last "fouled out" play comes back into the game.

To forfeit, you'd have to have all but 4 players injured.
IDK of any circumstance when that has happened.

Edit:
Players can be thrown out, too. By Tech Fouls, or 2 Flagrants.

[SMTBSI]

Spoiler:

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-3-players-substitutes-and-coaches/

Section I—Team

a. Each team shall consist of five players. A player is disqualified from the game when he receives his sixth personal foul. No team may be reduced to less than five players. If a player in the game receives his sixth personal foul and all substitutes have already been dis-qualified, said player shall remain in the game and shall be charged with a personal and team foul. A technical foul also shall be assessed against his team. All subsequent personal fouls, including offensive fouls, shall be treated similarly. All players who have six or more personal fouls and remain in the game shall be treated similarly.

b In the event that there are only five eligible players remaining and one of these players is injured and must leave the game or is ejected, he must be replaced by the last player who was disqualified by reason of receiving six personal fouls. Each subsequent requirement to replace an injured or ejected player will be treated in this inverse order. Any such re- entry into a game by a disqualified player shall be penalized by a technical foul.

It does not specify what happens in the case where a team no longer has five eligible players at all. Only two logical options seem a forfeit, or activating a formerly non-eligible player. The latter seems extremely unlikely, so it must be a forfeit.

The last 5 Players cannot foul out, no matter how many fouls they have.
If one of those players in subsequently injured, then the last "fouled out" play comes back into the game.

To forfeit, you'd have to have all but 4 players injured.
IDK of any circumstance when that has happened.

In a cursory scan of the net (wikipedia, reddit, yahoo answers, etc.), I also came up with no examples where a team has ever been truly, inescapably reduced to four players. If it had happened, it would presumably be a pretty notable event in NBA history and easy to find a reference to.

[Parliament10]

https://official.nba.com/rule-no-3-players-substitutes-and-coaches/



It does not specify what happens in the case where a team no longer has five eligible players at all. Only two logical options seem a forfeit, or activating a formerly non-eligible player. The latter seems extremely unlikely, so it must be a forfeit.

The last 5 Players cannot foul out, no matter how many fouls they have.
If one of those players in subsequently injured, then the last "fouled out" play comes back into the game.

To forfeit, you'd have to have all but 4 players injured.
IDK of any circumstance when that has happened.

In a cursory scan of the net (wikipedia, reddit, yahoo answers, etc.), I also came up with no examples where a team has ever been truly, inescapably reduced to four players. If it had happened, it would presumably be a pretty notable event in NBA history and easy to find a reference to.

True.
That would have been one long game, too!!!

[JJHondo17]

Sorry Parl, looks like a Celtic's - Bull's Game Thread will be unnecessary as well.

[PierceFan4ever]

Good that our games are being postponed. Keep it coming so Tatum has to miss less games

[Parliament10]

Sorry Parl, looks like a Celtic's - Bull's Game Thread will be unnecessary as well.

I doubt that we're playing Wednesday, either.
NBA is meeting today. I'm thinking they'll make some drastic changes.

[Fencer reregistered]

Sorry Parl, looks like a Celtic's - Bull's Game Thread will be unnecessary as well.

I doubt that we're playing Wednesday, either.
NBA is meeting today. I'm thinking they'll make some drastic changes.

Changes to what's allowable so that fewer guys get sick? Yes, if they can.

Changes to quarantine rules to let more non-sick guys play? Quite possibly, despite the risks.

Changes to actual or anticipated schedules? I have no opinion. Thoughts?


Generally, I'm guessing that the NBA has some safety rules in mind that the players dislike, and the players told them "Don't implement these now; let's wait and see whether they're really necessary". And now we're seeing some necessity.

[Green89]

They decided to not have 19 man rosters and instead opted for 17. Big mistake, as now we will have to make up 2-3 games so far. Other games are going to start being postponed like crazy. They need to do something.