Aussie Basketball Travellers Dunk Basketball Uniforms

Advertising spot currently available.
Minimum three month period (1.2+ million page views, 92% Australian).
Email [email protected] for rates and options.

AD: Office space available in Adelaide CBD @ 313 Halifax St;
Suit creatives; freelance desks or space for 2-4 person business. More info

slammin'08
Two years ago

#38425

Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

I have seen so much said about the fact the foul was called in a "deadball" situation. This is NOT the rule. From the FIBA official basketball rules as copied below it is only when the ball it "out ofbounds" in the hands of the official or player making the inbounds pass. Not the same thing. Also it can only be called against the DEFENSIVE player unless it meets any of the other criteria. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Art. 37 Unsportsmanlike foul
37.1. Definition
37.1.1. An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact foul which, in the judgement of an
official is:
• Not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of
the rules.
• Excessive, hard contact caused by a player in an effort to play the ball.
• Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an
attempt to stop the fast break and there is no defensive player between the
offensive player and the opponent's basket.
• Contact by the defensive player on an opponent on the court during the last 2
minutes in the fourth period and in each extra period, when the ball is out-ofbounds
for a throw-in and still in the hands of the official or at the disposal of
the player taking the throw-in.

Report this topic


 

snooch
Two years ago
09:14 9 Nov 15

Reply #562869

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Well that certainly seems to be a game-changer, so to speak....


Report this post



PlaymakerMo
Two years ago
09:40 9 Nov 15

Reply #562878

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

It doesn't even matter if the rule applies to that scenario as the "foul" on Webster occurred virtually simultaneously with Majok's. The ball was neither an out-of-bounds or dead at the time of the call.

I'm not certain this is why the refs even decided it was an USF. Why did they need to clarify with the ref that made the call against Webster that he called it an USF, and whether or not they could change the call?

They just completely bungled the call.


Report this post



Bear
Two years ago
09:51 9 Nov 15

Reply #562881

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

One week Perth gets a no call on an obvious foul when Beal takes it to the rim that would have swung the game against United, then this week United get a 50/50 foul call on Holt who does a similar thing and they again get the win.

I don't know why, but right now United and the officials smell pretty damned horrible to me...


Report this post



mystro
Two years ago
09:52 9 Nov 15

Reply #562882

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

agreed, the Refs kooked it and it almost cost NZ the game so on the next play they made another poor call in awarding the foul on Pledger to ice the game for Melbourne.


Report this post



Muzz Buzz
Two years ago
10:09 9 Nov 15

Reply #562893

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The ball was in play, pledger was holding it when Majok fouled him.

The offense can not get a USF in a dead ball situation


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
10:42 9 Nov 15

Reply #562910

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Muzz Buzz the offence can get a USF in a deadfall situation but not in this manner. Not as outlined in the rule for last 2 mins of the 4th quarter. If the clock is stopped and its a deadfall and I punch someone well its going to be a USF. The problem is the referees talked themselves into a USF call based on the fact it was inside the last 2 mins and the ball was dead (clock stopped) after the initial foul. They talked themselves into an error and then applied the rule incorrectly.


Report this post



Supernintendo Chalmers
Two years ago
11:06 9 Nov 15

Reply #562916

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

So the errors made were;

- Calling the offensive foul when it was minimal contact and a massive flop.
- They potentially could have called teched Goulding for the flop
- Reviewing the plays and incorrectly deciding it was a foul in a dead ball situation.
- Not sensibly deciding that the fraction of a second between the Majok foul and the Webster foul meant that calling it a dead ball foul was against the spirit of the rule.
- Calling the automatic USF when it can't go to an offensive player, as per the rules.

Thats a pretty big series of stuff ups to make in the dying seconds of a game. I can't believe between all three of them they could get it so wrong.


Report this post



Anon United Supporter
Two years ago
11:09 9 Nov 15

Reply #562917

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

I am both a United supporter and a (domestic) referee but I have to say the refs got the USF decision horribly wrong and it cost Breakers the game.

The OP is spot on - it wasn't an USF because it wasn't unduly rough, it was by a defensive player, and it wasn't when the inbounded had the ball at his disposal.

You can hear on the replay that the ref who called the foul did not want it to be an unsportsmanlike foul but, after consulting with the game commissioner/4th official, they managed to convince themselves otherwise. I'd like to see the NBL put out an official statement, maybe from Albert Joseph as the Senior Referee Manager, stating that the officials got it wrong, and why it was wrong.

Even better would be to do the same thing as the NBA and put out an official NBL report/critique on all referee decisions in the last few minutes of close matches.

For all that, can't wait for (at least) 3 more United/Breakers matches this season!


Report this post



Luuuc
Two years ago
11:13 9 Nov 15

Reply #562920

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

It didn't even sit right with Demopoulos:

"As much as I love coming out on top I don't like it like that - I feel bad. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, I have no idea.
It's not the way I would like it. If I was on the other side I wouldn't have liked it."

Kudos to him for those comments.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/melbourne-united-star-chris-goulding-says-he-will-do-anything-to-win-after-flopping-calls-20151108-gktkyl.html


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
11:15 9 Nov 15

Reply #562922

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The 4th official is the person who should be sacked for not knowing the rules.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
11:23 9 Nov 15

Reply #562924

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

I believe they ruled an unsportsmanlike because it was after the first whistle!

If you can remember a few years back, Brian Conklin was assessed an USF after he fouled a Wildcats player on the way to the basket and when they tried to finish of the play as an And One, he fouled them again.

In any situation, it is a bad call.

Not enough is being said about the last foul call too - not much contact on Holt by Pledger IMO and the common sentiment in basketball circles is referees swallow their whistles at the end of games so players get to decide the game. There's no way a foul should have been called there.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
11:25 9 Nov 15

Reply #562925

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

me from above

Just thinking, does the situation I set out with Conklin make it a dead ball foul - after the initial whistle? I suppose it does.


Report this post



Supernintendo Chalmers
Two years ago
11:26 9 Nov 15

Reply #562926

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

"If you can remember a few years back, Brian Conklin was assessed an USF after he fouled a Wildcats player on the way to the basket and when they tried to finish of the play as an And One, he fouled them again.

In any situation, it is a bad call."

But that is the situation where an USF is needed - to stop defenders taking a free cheap shot at the offensive player after the whistle. If there was no punishment it would give defenders the green light to smash someone to stop a continuation play.


Report this post



LV
Two years ago
11:33 9 Nov 15

Reply #562930

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

It's particularly concerning that they stuffed it up despite having close to two minutes to consider, discuss and review.

And a shame that such a good contest will forever be marred in our memories because of it.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
12:51 9 Nov 15

Reply #562952

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Question:

At Sundays game, WHY did the refs cover up their mic's when discussing these calls?

What are they trying to hide?


Report this post



Slammin'08
Two years ago
12:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #562955

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Head Ref: Guys I have $1000.00 on United to win, how do we get them the ball?

Ref 2: Unsportsmanlike sounds like something we can do? What's in it for me?

Ref 3: Can we get a cut?

Ref 4 (on the bench): (Scratching head) I think I read somewhere that it can be unsportsmanlike in a dead ball situation? Just go with that.


Report this post



Slammin'08
Two years ago
12:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #562956

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The above is tongue in cheek by the way. I don't actually think they fixed the game, I just think they are incompetent.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
13:19 9 Nov 15

Reply #562959

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

I cant wait for the NBL's referees boss to come out and say the calls were according to an interpretation of the law and they 100% support the referees decision on the day.

THAT would be the worst outcome out of this. That shows the NBL's referees has zero balls and zero connection with a) the teams b) the fans and c) the game as it should be played.


Report this post



Supernintendo Chalmers
Two years ago
13:21 9 Nov 15

Reply #562961

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The NBL Twitter account was very quiet after the game yesterday. None of the usual "if you love basketball then you must watch this" type of stuff. They posted the result then pretty much shut up shop. I think they realise it would be pretty ordinary to try and pump up the game when it ended in such farcical circumstances.


Report this post



just ask me
Two years ago
13:31 9 Nov 15

Reply #562965

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The correct decision should have been to deem that both whistles sounded simulatneously and apply the penaties as such. The result from that would have had pledger shoot his 2 free throws with possession then given to utd from the side line.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
13:37 9 Nov 15

Reply #562967

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Just ask me, just how to you award 2 shots and possession to NZ then give UTD from side line?

both can't have possession?

how about a double foul, which would have cancelled each other out and just resumed from side line again with ball to NZ?


Report this post



Supernintendo Chalmers
Two years ago
13:39 9 Nov 15

Reply #562969

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

He didn't say they both get possession.

"pledger shoot his 2 free throws, with possession then given to utd from the side line."

Comma added.


Report this post



LV
Two years ago
14:00 9 Nov 15

Reply #562974

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

If they had decided to call a regular foul on Webster (instead of a USF) what would the outcome have been in terms of shots, possession etc? Would it be dependent on timing of that foul as well?


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
14:04 9 Nov 15

Reply #562976

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

If they called a regular foul on Webster and a regular foul on Majok, it would've been NZ side ball, no free-throws.

One ref actually made that call at the time, and was quickly overruled.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
14:15 9 Nov 15

Reply #562977

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Would have to be two shots to new Zealand then two shots to goulding followed by possession

can't give two shots no possession to UTD then shots to NZ, you can't cancel out fouls as one has a heavier penalty than the other.

have to end with possession to UTD


Report this post



Interested
Two years ago
14:28 9 Nov 15

Reply #562980

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Cant be a double foul - it wasnt the same two players committing fouls on each other at exactly the same time.

The penalties are determined by the order the fouls occured.

Clearly Pledger is fouled first - Two shots
Then Foul "called" on Webster - side ball (offensive foul)

Acceptable outcome:
Two shots pledger then NZ ball from the point nearest to the foul called on Webster.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
14:42 9 Nov 15

Reply #562983

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Wouldnt United get the ball back seeing NZ (Webster) fouled? You dont get the ball back after you commit a foul!!

2 shots to Pledger, then United get the ball for the Webster foul.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
14:47 9 Nov 15

Reply #562985

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Would have to be two shots to new Zealand then two shots to goulding followed by possession

can't give two shots no possession to UTD then shots to NZ, you can't cancel out fouls as one has a heavier penalty than the other.

have to end with possession to UTD
The hypothetical under discussion is if it wasn't called a USF.

Acceptable outcome:
Two shots pledger then NZ ball from the point nearest to the foul called on Webster.
You mean Melbourne ball, right?

If the Webster foul was called second, it's not a team control foul (control ended with the Majok foul), therefore two free-throws to each team. That cancels out, NZ ball from the side.

There has to be a provision for simultaneous fouls not involving the same players, even if it's not 'double foul'. I'll do some more digging.


Report this post



LV
Two years ago
14:49 9 Nov 15

Reply #562987

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

If they decided it was a foul on Webster and after Majok's foul, I would've thought it'd be two shots to NZ and then UTD ball.

Although, they could also apply discretion and decide that for all intents and purposes, the two fouls happened on the same play and therefore at the same time (even if the replay reveals that the Majok foul was a second earlier).

Although if that were the case what would happen? In a double foul the effects cancel each other out. But as someone says above, doesn't a "double foul" have to involve two players fouling each other, *not* two separate fouls on opposite sides of the court?


Report this post



LV
Two years ago
14:50 9 Nov 15

Reply #562988

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

SOrry I meant to say a fraction* of a second earlier.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
15:15 9 Nov 15

Reply #562993

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Okay, looks like I got the team control thing wrong. Under 41.2.2, the penalty doesn't apply if the team that committed the foul was entitled to the ball, so whether the ball was live or dead is irrelevant. Therefore, there are different penalties (two FTs to NZ, possession to Melbourne) to sort out. If only there were a rule covering this exact situation...


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
15:37 9 Nov 15

Reply #562999

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

These refs should never be allowed to referee again in the Nbl. My goodness did they totally screw up the call and the result.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
16:17 9 Nov 15

Reply #563006

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The officials have been terrible all season but there really is no excuse for that pathetic call. There's no way the refs could have seen an unsportsmanlike foul on the play. The game was handed to Melbourne on a platter and the second time this season a questionable call has handed Melbourne a win. The NBL's golden boy Chris Goulding gets any call he wants and it needs to stop!


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
16:26 9 Nov 15

Reply #563007

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

hypot then, shots cancel each other out, ball goes to NZ who had it in their possession at time of call if you have two shots to one team and then two shots to another team happening at same time, penatlies cancel out and ball goes back to team in control of ball at time of foul/fouls.

Or you give them in the order in which they occurred.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
16:32 9 Nov 15

Reply #563008

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Penalties were different #007. One waz 2 + possession and the other 2 shots. The penalties are not the same so you can cancel them out and play on from the ledt over


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
16:38 9 Nov 15

Reply #563009

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.

I've read literally every section of the rulebook that could possibly apply to this situation, and it is 100% clear that should have been the result. It's not even ambiguous.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
16:56 9 Nov 15

Reply #563012

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

^ +1


Report this post



LV
Two years ago
16:59 9 Nov 15

Reply #563013

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Thanks for the links and analysis Kobe


Report this post



Train
Two years ago
17:34 9 Nov 15

Reply #563018

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Just out of curiosity, is there anything in the rules which can call for a match to be replayed if it was deemed the result was determined by an unfair or incorrect call?


Report this post



Mystro
Two years ago
17:41 9 Nov 15

Reply #563019

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

And what happens with bets placed on said game when an incorrect call costs $$$$


Report this post



Bake
Two years ago
17:46 9 Nov 15

Reply #563020

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Raoul Kirsten has refereed half of United's games and made "Kirsten Calls", unexplained or phantom calls in all of them>


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
18:50 9 Nov 15

Reply #563026

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Two refs stood down, instant replay expanded.

The press release also states what should have happened...and gets it wrong. Again. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.


Report this post



snooch
Two years ago
18:50 9 Nov 15

Reply #563027

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Has anyone seen the NBL statement on this, andthefoul reporting a rule change and 2 refs srood down..


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
18:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #563029

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
18:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #563030

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

(Right click and select 'view image' to get full size)


Report this post



Vodka 63
Two years ago
18:58 9 Nov 15

Reply #563031

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Surely the fairest outcome would be to give Melbourne and NZ half a win each for this debacle. In a tight comp, that could be the difference between playing finals or not, or getting home court advantage at the end of the season. NZ have been massively ripped off.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
19:00 9 Nov 15

Reply #563032

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Even assuming nothing else changes, the game still goes to overtime.


Report this post



Downthecorridor
Two years ago
19:00 9 Nov 15

Reply #563034

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Does anyone have info the fi a rules on how refs determine a flop? That was the piece missing from that statement.


Report this post



snooch
Two years ago
19:10 9 Nov 15

Reply #563039

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Exactly. I guess the NBL is ok with flopping then?


Report this post



paul
Two years ago
19:15 9 Nov 15

Reply #563041

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The thing is, when they are repeatedly called charges they're not flops any more, they are legitimate defensive plays. Change the calls, you get rid of the flops.


Report this post



PlaymakerMo
Two years ago
19:50 9 Nov 15

Reply #563050

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

As per the press release: if Webster's foul is deemed to have occurred immediately after (i.e. not simultaneously) Majok's foul, is it still considered an *offensive* foul?

Given that the ball is dead by definition after the Majok foul, I assume it's a regular personal foul.

That leads to 2x FTs for each team being cancelled out, but then:

"42.2.4. The right to possession of the ball as part of the last penalty shall cancel any prior rights to possession of the ball."

Doesn't United gain possession as the final penalty was against Webster?


Report this post



FM
Two years ago
19:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #563054

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Webster is an offensive player from the moment the referee goes to give the ball to the in bound passer until the fouls. Which were 'consecutive' in this situation. Goulding was not ever in a position to be awarded 2 shots.

Whoever made this press release needs to be sacked. They had the advantage of replays, rule books and discussion and still got it wrong. If this person can't get it right, then how are our referees ever going to improve or have faith in what this person is telling them.

Sorry, but have shown this to three different referees at game speed and they all came up with 2 shots Pledger then Melbourne side ball back court near half way. They were shocked when I showed them what the game officials did.

Additionally, on video review you can hear the bench chair saying the flop. Then The crew chief says there wasn't a flop. Remember this chairperson is provided by Melbourne, and they even were declaring it a flop.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
19:54 9 Nov 15

Reply #563055

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The Webster foul was an offensive foul, and thus no team penalty, so there was no canceling out even if they'd called it correctly.

Per 34.1.1 and 37.1.1, it shouldn't have been a USF. Per 41.2.2 the team penalty didn't apply.

Therefore, per 42.2.6 the penalties would have been NZ's free throws first, for the first infraction, then Melbourne ball second, for the second infraction.


Report this post



PlaymakerMo
Two years ago
20:11 9 Nov 15

Reply #563057

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

If the fouls were considered consecutive, then how is Webster an 'offensive' player -- and therefore his foul 'offensive' -- after the Majok foul? The ball is dead once Majok fouled Pledger.


Report this post



paul
Two years ago
20:30 9 Nov 15

Reply #563060

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Because New Zealand had possession of the ball.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
20:32 9 Nov 15

Reply #563061

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

41.2.2 defines an offensive foul as a foul by the team either in possession of, or entitled to possession of, the ball. The ball being dead doesn't change anything.


Report this post



PlaymakerMo
Two years ago
20:47 9 Nov 15

Reply #563067

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Yep, duh.

I'm clearly too tired.


Report this post



Three To Make Two
Two years ago
08:01 10 Nov 15

Reply #563113

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

Does anyone know the exact basis the referees determined that it was an USF?

That is, did they say it was excessively hard, or did they apply the foul before the inbound rule?


Report this post



Three To Make Two
Two years ago
08:02 10 Nov 15

Reply #563114

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

or not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball?


Report this post



Three To Make Two
Two years ago
08:21 10 Nov 15

Reply #563119

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

One more thing: sometimes it comes down to how referees interpret and apply the rules. I'm sure they know what the rules are but the application lets them down.

For example, it was my understanding that when they brought in the USF for contact from behind/laterally on a fast break, that was to stop the cheap fouls that weren't excessively hard but did deprive the offensive team of a certain basket. And in many cases simply resulted in a sideball.

But it seemed that some referees (at least for a while) interpreted this rule as ALL fouls from behind on a shot and were USF. So, they were calling genuine shot-block attempts as USF.

This showed me that they knew there was a rule for contact from behind on a fast break, but didn't apply it within the intention.

In a legal sense, they were taking a strict legal approach and could probably justify their decision by doing a line-by-line analysis (as they seem to have done in reaching their decision in the Melbourne-NZ game). But they should take the "Golden" rule or "mischief" approach and get to the right decision as intended by the lawmakers.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
11:51 10 Nov 15

Reply #563147

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

The only USF action of the entire play was Goulding having a handfull of Jacksons singlet before he flopped !!


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
13:53 10 Nov 15

Reply #563186

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

They said it was a USF purely because of the dead ball. Most of the discussion they had was trying to figure out how not to call it as a USF, before eventually concluding they had no choice.

The interpretation of calling a shot-block attempt from behind as a USF on the fast break is correct. Roy Ward had that one confirmed when it happened to Vukona in the Oceania series.


Report this post



Anonymous
Two years ago
14:10 10 Nov 15

Reply #563188

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

This has been clarified in fiba interpretations 2015.

37.8 statement: Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an attempt to stop the fast break shall be called as an unsportsmanlike foul only until the offensive player begins his act of shooting. However any hard contact may be called as an unsportsmanlike foul at any time during the game.


Report this post



koberulz
Two years ago
15:37 10 Nov 15

Reply #563198

re: Unsportsmanlike Foul rule clarification

That's what I thought it was, but Ward had it confirmed differently.


Report this post





 

Reply to this topic

Name Email

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Dione 90

Title
Rules: You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets
Message

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.
 


Liam Flynn - basketball coaching and consulting

Recent Posts

.

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 12:27 am, Sat 25 Mar 2017 | Posts: 655,271 | Last 7 days: 693