|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fansincemagic
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 11051
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:49 am Post subject: Silver says changes coming to Hack-a-Shaq issue |
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2016/02/04/hack-a-shaq-adam-silver-deandre-jordan-andre-drummond-dwight-howard/79838018/
I fully support Silver getting to the bottom of this. So much so that there should be people helping raise free throw accuracy awareness, not just at an NBA level but to every level of basketball. To cut costs though, the ones that teach kids how to dribble, score and play defense should add this one more task to their teachings. Problem solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22841
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| People keep saying how it's not good entertainment, but do they change channels? Nope. People will continue to watch to either pull for the guy or revel in his failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
They shouldn't change it. Guys should learn to shoot free throws. SMH
Just shoot them Rick Barry style!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
After Shaq was in the league for 17+ yrs. Great job at quickly recognizing there was an aesthetic problem and/or loophole being exploited.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:40 am Post subject: Re: Silver says changes coming to Hack-a-Shaq issue |
|
|
| fansincemagic wrote: | http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2016/02/04/hack-a-shaq-adam-silver-deandre-jordan-andre-drummond-dwight-howard/79838018/
I fully support Silver getting to the bottom of this. So much so that there should be people helping raise free throw accuracy awareness, not just at an NBA level but to every level of basketball. To cut costs though, the ones that teach kids how to dribble, score and play defense should add this one more task to their teachings. Problem solved. |
The notion that you are going to teach everyone to be a sound free thrower isn't realistic. People debate whether terrible free throwers are a matter of technique, body mechanics, psychology, ability and a bunch of other things.
The issue isn't eliminating all terrible free-throwers, because that's impossible. It's how much you should allow teams to target them with fouls |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The “guys just need to make their free throws” argument isn't persuasive. There are many skills that give rise to an NBA player, and while shooting is highly selective, it is not necessary for an NBA player to be a good shooter – many mediocre or even poor shooters can make the league on the basis of other skills or attributes. It stands to reason that shooting ability will always be distributed (probably a skewed normal distribution), and that there will always be players for whom a high free throw percentage is unrealistic – so the Hack-A-Player strategy, if allowed, will always be effective. Guys just making their free throws will never be a solution to this problem, and it is unrealistic and non-empirical to believe otherwise. That leaves changing the system of meritocracy that gives rise to NBA players (so only good shooters can make the league in the first place), or changing the rules to disincentivize the Hack-A-Player strategy, as the only plausible solutions. The latter is much easier than the former, of course.
That said, to me the arguments all boil down to what is almost a fundamental statement about right and wrong. This is the only instance that comes to mind in all of team sports in which one side can break the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. To me that’s anathema to the concept of sporting competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | That said, to me the arguments all boil down to what is almost a fundamental statement about right and wrong. This is the only instance that comes to mind in all of team sports in which one side can break the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. To me that’s anathema to the concept of sporting competition. |
I agreed with you up to here, but I think you're misstating this part. Hack-a-Shaq might be against the spirit of the games, but it's not against the rules. And that's the point. It's unrealistic to think teams and players won't take an advantage if the rules allow it because it's "unsporting."
Personally, I don't find anything unethical about purposefully fouling a bad free thrower. In fact, if a team can turn a loss into a win using hack-a-shaq, a coach is not doing his job if he doesn't employ the tactic. If the NBA finds this makes the game less enjoyable, it's up to the NBA to implement rules where this practice is no longer a worthwhile strategy.
Last edited by activeverb on Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every player has a weakness. And it's up to the opposing coaches and players to exploit said weaknesses. That's all they're doing in hack a player. They shouldn't change it. It's just strategy.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| frijolero01 wrote: | | Every player has a weakness. And it's up to the opposing coaches and players to exploit said weaknesses. That's all they're doing in hack a player. They shouldn't change it. It's just strategy. |
At one time, a team passing the ball around for six minutes without taking shot was just a strategy too. But it made the games boring so they put in the 24-second clock to stop it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29282
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Denver Nuggets coach Mike Malone has done something I've never seen before.
Nobody is talking about it, but his late game strategy when they are down is genius.
If you haven't watched their games, they have a foul-drawing machine named Danillo Gallinari (he may even be better at drawing fouls than Lou Williams).
So late in games, when they are down. They Iso Gallo and when he draws a shooting foul, on his 2nd free throw, they go over the back of the opposing teams Center (intentionally) to draw a loose ball foul. It avoids the hack-a-shack rule (2 shots and the possession) since it's a loose ball foul.
In one of their recent games, they were down 5 with 50 something seconds left.
Gallo went to the line, made both free throws. Gary Harris climbed over the back of the opposing teams Center. So immediately after Gallo made a free throw, the opposing teams worth FT shooter had to shoot 2 (with no time going off the clock).
They ended up having a chance to to win that game. But it didn't work out.
Every team should do that strategy to put opposing Centers on the line late in the game, while avoiding the hack-a-shaq rule for the final 2 minutes of the game. Just have to make sure your team is in the penalty.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | | That said, to me the arguments all boil down to what is almost a fundamental statement about right and wrong. This is the only instance that comes to mind in all of team sports in which one side can break the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. To me that’s anathema to the concept of sporting competition. |
I agreed with you up to here, but I think you're misstating this part. Hack-a-Shaq might be against the spirit of the games, but it's not against the rules. And that's the point. It's unrealistic to think teams and players won't take an advantage if the rules allow it because it's "unsporting."
Personally, I don't find anything unethical about purposefully fouling a bad free thrower. In fact, if a team can turn a loss into a win using hack-a-shaq, a coach is not doing his job if he doesn't employ the tactic. If the NBA finds this makes the game less enjoyable, it's up to the NBA to implement rules where this practice is no longer a worthwhile strategy. |
Agreed. It's not against the rules. Which is why I brought up the point that players should get better at free throws if they don't want this strategy used against them.
I don't think the rules should be changed. If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | I agreed with you up to here, but I think you're misstating this part. Hack-a-Shaq might be against the spirit of the games, but it's not against the rules. |
And I lost you right back.  By what definition of the rules of basketball is a hack or similar contact within the rules? That's why they stop the play and assess a penalty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 22 wrote: | | If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
Why?
And more fundamentally, why should a penalty assessment be contingent on a skill at all, much less a skill that isn't necessary to play in the NBA (otherwise bad shooters would never make the NBA)? What if in football it was, "That was roughing the quarterback. That's a 15 yard penalty, only the quarterback has to kick a field goal first."
And like I said in my first post, thinking that "just hit your free throws" is a solution is as unrealistic and non-empirical as "just say no" is to the drug problem or "abstinence-only" is to teen pregnancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | I agreed with you up to here, but I think you're misstating this part. Hack-a-Shaq might be against the spirit of the games, but it's not against the rules. |
And I lost you right back. By what definition of the rules of basketball is a hack or similar contact within the rules? That's why they stop the play and assess a penalty. |
We're talking about two different things.
Fouling a player -- whether intentional or not -- incurs a penalty.
What I meant is there is no additional penalty against intentionally fouling a player repeatedly, and attempting to incur the penalty because it's to your advantage to do so. Thus, the rules allow the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | What I meant is there is no additional penalty against intentionally fouling a player repeatedly, and attempting to incur the penalty because it's to your advantage to do so. Thus, the rules allow the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. |
I get you. But to me, the fact that an insufficient, contingent penalty gives rise to a strategy is only a symptom. It is the insufficient, contingent penalty itself that is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
Why?
And more fundamentally, why should a penalty assessment be contingent on a skill at all, much less a skill that isn't necessary to play in the NBA (otherwise bad shooters would never make the NBA)? What if in football it was, "That was roughing the quarterback. That's a 15 yard penalty, only the quarterback has to kick a field goal first."
And like I said in my first post, thinking that "just hit your free throws" is a solution is as unrealistic and non-empirical as "just say no" is to the drug problem or "abstinence-only" is to teen pregnancy. |
Because you're trying to change a perceived problem based on a player's laziness and lack of skill. It simply isn't a problem if you know how to make free throws. No one's out there int fouling good free throw shooters.
Why mess up a perfectly good strategy because a group of players don't spend as much time in the gym as the players shooting in the high percentages? "I'm good enough that I don't need to be more than a 60% free throw shooter."
So let's change the rules for that type of player?
That doesn't sound right to me.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made.  Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | What I meant is there is no additional penalty against intentionally fouling a player repeatedly, and attempting to incur the penalty because it's to your advantage to do so. Thus, the rules allow the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. |
I get you. But to me, the fact that an insufficient, contingent penalty gives rise to a strategy is only a symptom. It is the insufficient, contingent penalty itself that is the problem. |
I think we agree: Teams will use hack-a-shaq as long as they think it provides an advantage, and the only way to stop this tactic is to attach a penalty that makes hack-and-a-shaq no longer advantageous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
Why?
And more fundamentally, why should a penalty assessment be contingent on a skill at all, much less a skill that isn't necessary to play in the NBA (otherwise bad shooters would never make the NBA)? What if in football it was, "That was roughing the quarterback. That's a 15 yard penalty, only the quarterback has to kick a field goal first."
And like I said in my first post, thinking that "just hit your free throws" is a solution is as unrealistic and non-empirical as "just say no" is to the drug problem or "abstinence-only" is to teen pregnancy. |
Because you're trying to change a perceived problem based on a player's laziness and lack of skill. It simply isn't a problem if you know how to make free throws. No one's out there int fouling good free throw shooters.
Why mess up a perfectly good strategy because a group of players don't spend as much time in the gym as the players shooting in the high percentages? "I'm good enough that I don't need to be more than a 60% free throw shooter."
So let's change the rules for that type of player?
That doesn't sound right to me. |
Well, I think most people would disagree with your belief that any bad free thrower can become adequate simply by putting in gym time, There are lots of bad free throwers who work and work and work on the issue without success. So unless you accept that some NBA players are not capable of being successful free throwers, this whole conversation is probably over.
If you can accept that, then the issue isn't about changing the rules to benefit bad free throwers, but to make the games more enjoyable. Lots of people find the hack-a-shaq strategy boring and disruptive to the game.
It's like my earlier example of the 24 second clock. By your reasoning, they shouldn't have put the rule in because it rewarded teams that were not skilled enough to take the ball away from opponents. However the real reason they put it in was because the delaying tactic bored fans.
Last edited by activeverb on Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | What I meant is there is no additional penalty against intentionally fouling a player repeatedly, and attempting to incur the penalty because it's to your advantage to do so. Thus, the rules allow the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. |
I get you. But to me, the fact that an insufficient, contingent penalty gives rise to a strategy is only a symptom. It is the insufficient, contingent penalty itself that is the problem. |
I think we agree: Teams will use hack-a-shaq as long as they think it provides an advantage, and the only way to stop this tactic is to attach a penalty that makes hack-and-a-shaq no longer advantageous. |
Yeah, they ought to give the other team a chance to score 2 points with two completely unguarded shots.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USCandLakers wrote: | | Because you're trying to change a perceived problem based on a player's laziness and lack of skill. |
I think this nails our difference of opinion. I have a hard time accepting the idea of a player making the NBA out of laziness, and what you call "lack of skill," I'd call a different collection of skills (or at least attributes). So long as a player has a collection of skills sufficient to make the NBA, he can be an NBA player. It doesn't depend on one particular skill -- there's certainly no minimum-FT shooting requirement for a player to be able to join the league. And unless there is such a requirement, players' shooting abilities will always be distributed, and there will always be poor shooters in the NBA. As I've been saying, the "just hit your FTs" response is technically correct, but unrealistic in a practical sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | USCandLakers wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
Why?
And more fundamentally, why should a penalty assessment be contingent on a skill at all, much less a skill that isn't necessary to play in the NBA (otherwise bad shooters would never make the NBA)? What if in football it was, "That was roughing the quarterback. That's a 15 yard penalty, only the quarterback has to kick a field goal first."
And like I said in my first post, thinking that "just hit your free throws" is a solution is as unrealistic and non-empirical as "just say no" is to the drug problem or "abstinence-only" is to teen pregnancy. |
Because you're trying to change a perceived problem based on a player's laziness and lack of skill. It simply isn't a problem if you know how to make free throws. No one's out there int fouling good free throw shooters.
Why mess up a perfectly good strategy because a group of players don't spend as much time in the gym as the players shooting in the high percentages? "I'm good enough that I don't need to be more than a 60% free throw shooter."
So let's change the rules for that type of player?
That doesn't sound right to me. |
Well, I think most people would disagree with your belief that any bad free thrower can become adequate simply by putting in gym time, There are lots of bad free throwers who work and work and work on the issue without success. So unless you accept that some NBA players are not capable of being successful free throwers, this whole conversation is probably over.
If you can accept that, then the issue isn't about changing the rules to benefit bad free throwers, but to make the games more enjoyable. Lots of people find the hack-a-shaq strategy boring and disruptive to the game. |
This isn't an all-star game. If someone on the other team can't do something, you take advantage of it, the league shouldn't go changing the rules just because that player is incapable. That's like making a rule preventing NFL teams from playing their secondary a certain way against Peyton Manning because he can't throw a deep ball anymore, and no matter how much time he spends in the gym, he can't throw a deep ball.
So change the rules because he can't do something that most QBs can do?
That just doesn't sound right to me. In terms of hack a shaq, it's up to the coach to shift the strategy. Does the benefits of having this player on the floor outweigh the negatives? On the opposing side, does sending this player to the line and giving him two unguarded shots going to end up being more of a positive than if we just played defense? That's strategy. That's chess. Because the coach decides to leave the player in to get fouled, change the rules?
Some players can't play defense no matter how hard they train, no matter how hard they try. They have physical deficiencies. They get eaten up on the defense all the same. Change the rules and make it so you can't screen this player?
The easiest and most fair answer to this "problem" is for the player to just make their free throws or the coach to remove the player from the game. It's a game of skill and a game of strategy. Hack of a shaq is all about skill(or a lack thereof) and strategy. That's the NBA.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | USCandLakers wrote: | | Because you're trying to change a perceived problem based on a player's laziness and lack of skill. |
I think this nails our difference of opinion. I have a hard time accepting the idea of a player making the NBA out of laziness, and what you call "lack of skill," I'd call a different collection of skills (or at least attributes). So long as a player has a collection of skills sufficient to make the NBA, he can be an NBA player. It doesn't depend on one particular skill -- there's certainly no minimum-FT shooting requirement for a player to be able to join the league. And unless there is such a requirement, players' shooting abilities will always be distributed, and there will always be poor shooters in the NBA. As I've been saying, the "just hit your FTs" response is technically correct, but unrealistic in a practical sense. |
That's where strategy comes into play. Coaches have the ability to remove these players from the game. They aren't forced to leave them in. So why put it on the league?
Why is this different from an offensive player not being able to play defense? He can shoot the ball but he can't play defense worth a damn. Is it unfair for the opposing team to take advantage of this and go right at this player? There are 13 players dressed. It's up to the coach to decide whether the positives of having this player in the game outweigh the negatives. Make a substitution. That's why there are backups.
Hack a shaq is a two way strategy. What if he makes both free throws on one side. What if he misses one or both on the other. Both sides have the ability to make the hack a shaq not happen.
I just don't see how this is different(other than entertainment value, which I think this is about) from all the other strategy in the game.
A player is good on offense but bad on defense - Coach 1 goes right at him, forcing Coach 2 to either leave him in or take him out.
A player is good at getting to the basket but can't shoot from the outside. Coach 1 sags off of him which disrupts the entire offense, forcing Coach 2 to change up his offensive strategy.
A player is good on defense but can't do anything on offense. Coach 1 leaves him alone which disrupts the offense, forcing Coach 2 to decide if the pros of his defense outweighs the cons of his offense.
A player is good on both offense and defense but can't make free throws. Coach 1 intentionally fouls him and sends him to the line, forcing Coach 2 to decide if the positives of this player being on the court outweigh the negatives.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | 22 wrote: | | If one of your players shots free throws poorly, teams should be allowed to take advantage |
Why?
And more fundamentally, why should a penalty assessment be contingent on a skill at all, much less a skill that isn't necessary to play in the NBA (otherwise bad shooters would never make the NBA)? What if in football it was, "That was roughing the quarterback. That's a 15 yard penalty, only the quarterback has to kick a field goal first."
And like I said in my first post, thinking that "just hit your free throws" is a solution is as unrealistic and non-empirical as "just say no" is to the drug problem or "abstinence-only" is to teen pregnancy. |
To me it's more like gambling with an offside kick because you know the other team has a poor field goal kicker. And if you don't recover, you'll be able to hold them to a field goal attempt which they will likely miss.
But the football example is not that close because football players have unique positions, and basketball players do not. All players are required to shoot free throws if they are fouled.
When I say "Just hit your free throws," I'm not using that as a strategy to deter hack-a-shaq on a league wide level. To me personally, I don't think hack-a-shaq ruins the game at all. It makes it more interesting to me because I love to see the poor free throw shooter's sweating at the line lol. I'm saying that for specific players/teams. If you don't want teams to use it against you, improve. If you can't then tough luck.
I also don't buy the notion that players have done everything they can and yet still can't improve. Until I see NBA players at least TRYING the Rick Barry method then I know they haven't tried everything. As it stands now, they'd rather look cool and brick than shoot a granny shot and greatly improve their chances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saacman5033
Starting Rotation
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 786
Location: HNL
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fundamental objective of basketball is to put the ball in the hoop more than your opponent. If a player can't make a respectable percentage of easy freebies, they deserve the embarrassment that accompanies the hack-a-whoever strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frijolero01
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 13324
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | frijolero01 wrote: | | Every player has a weakness. And it's up to the opposing coaches and players to exploit said weaknesses. That's all they're doing in hack a player. They shouldn't change it. It's just strategy. |
At one time, a team passing the ball around for six minutes without taking shot was just a strategy too. But it made the games boring so they put in the 24-second clock to stop it. |
I think the refs blowing the whistle every 2 seconds and giving techs for players showing any kind of emotion makes the game boring.
_________________
Thank you, Kobe. We love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
