No, Odom was talkin' junk to Roy. No, didnt see the ball boy get tossed. That would be kinda funny to see.
What I miss hearing is how long a suspension Rudy is going to get for fouling Ariza's hand with his head... At the end of the day - I do not think it was a bad decision from the league. Ariza got a f-2 as he should have - no real reason to get bent out of shape about the suspension. Glad Rudy's injuries are not worse and I am sure the Blazers will remember and make the Lakers their bitches again in April - and if the Lakers are lucky enough to get out of the first round - in May
[dumbass laker fan]didn't you get the memo, Rudy flopped so he could pull a Paulina Pierce and come back to the court. he was chuckling it up in the locker room at his strategy and it was a drawn play [/dumbass laker fan]
I guess it will take someone to get seriously hurt on a play like this for the NBA to change it's tune. I guarantee that if it would have been Kobe who went down, broke his neck and was paralyzed for life.........there would have been a suspension. The fact Rudy did not get hurt was irrelevant. But on the flip side I guess if Greg took a full swipe at Kobe while he was driving to the basket, accidently crushing his skull with his forearm,(while going for the ball) I would be pissed if Greg got suspended. So it works both ways. Get healthy Greg and take some "hard" fouls!
I disagree. It's an extremely inconsistent application of the rule by the league office. Al Horford did the EXACT same thing to TJ Ford (took him down from behind with a blow to the head) and got a one game suspension. Therefore, if the rule is applied consistently, Ariza should receive the exact same penalty. The extent of Rudy's injuries should be irrelevant. The point of the rule and subsequent suspension is to send a clear message - you don't commit a dangerous act that puts another player at risk for serious injury. Unfortunately, by not suspending Ariza, the application of the rule becomes murky and unclear. Sometimes, it's OK to take a player down from behind, other times it's not? So, go ahead and hit a guy from behind after he's left his feet and take your chances that you might not get suspended? All that does is encourage more dangerous plays of this type. If the NBA is serious about protecting it's players from "unecessary and excessive" contact that could lead to an injury, they need to apply the rule and hand out the punishment equally - in ALL cases. I know we'll never get one, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation from the league about why Horfard was suspended for his act, but Ariza wasn't. BNM
I obviously do not know why the league made the decision they made - but I can speculate that in Al Horford's case he was not even close to the ball - where Ariza if he did not graze the ball was pretty close to it. Stupid move, no doubt, the F-2 was automatic - but after that - could care less about the suspension if he got it or not - does not change anything as far as the Blazers or Rudy are concerned. If the league decides there was an intent to play on the ball and he had come somewhat close to it - that's fine with me. I just do not have the hate in me to really care over that. All I want to know is that he was out of the game against the Blazers, Rudy is OK and the Blazers will remember it next time they see the Lakers.
Again, intent isn't mentioned anywhere in the rule. It's irrelevant. It's the action that warrants the penalty. Ariza's action was the same as Horford's - he took a player down, who had left his feet, from behind with a blow to the head. I don't see how that is even open to interpretation. The penalty shoud be the same in both cases. There is nothing about hate in my response. It's a legitimate question regardless of what team I cheer for. Why wasn't the penalty the same for Ariza as it was for Horford. If there is a legitimate reason, I'd like to hear it. That's all. No hate. Just a question. I'm concerned that if Ariza isn't suspended it sends a message that it's OK - SOMETIMES to put a player at risk for injury by taking him down from behind. That kind of mixed message could lead to a serious injury down the road and should be avoided. The NBA had a great opportunity here to reinforce it's stance that if you put another player at risk of serious injury, due to "unecessary and excessive" contact, you WILL be suspended, regardless of intent. By not suspending Ariza, they blew that opportunity and opened the door for more fouls of this type. That's bad for the players and bad for the league, no matter what team you support. BNM
The intent has nothing to do with the F-2 - but with what he was trying to do and how close he was to making it. My guess is that the league considered Ariza's play a much smaller error in judgment than Horford's because he actually did graze the ball - where Horford was not even close. Again - I have no clue why - I am speculating. Was it a bad idea? Sure. Did he deserve the F-2? No doubt. Do I care if he gets a suspension or not? No - not really - because as I said - if he was half a step quicker - it could have been a clean block. There is an issue with a margin of error - and Ariza's margin of error was a lot smaller than Horford's - that's just what I think caused them to considered it a "just one of the things that happen" and the F-2 being good enough. Intent should have nothing to do with a F-2 - but should have everything with further suspension. Both Horford and Ariza did not, in my opinion have intent to harm the opposing player. Horford's play however was just hopeless in achieving any contact with the ball - where Ariza's was dumb - but not completely hopeless.
You don't need to hear one; you already know why. Horford is a Hawk and Ariza wears the Purple & Piss. The rules are different if you are a member of a glory franchise.
There is a big difference between the two plays... Here is a refresher: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QaZdJzsHeZk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QaZdJzsHeZk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Horford: Nowhere close to the ball Downward striking motion Full swipe of his face sending his head back Ariza: Made contact with the ball Came across the body so there was a chance to avoid contact rather than downwards Hit Rudys head from the side The Horford foul was way more brutal when you consider just what happened in the air
This is a Blazer board. I realize Laker fans think that doesn't matter, but it does. So if you want to defend the douche Ariza, don't expect civil discourse in return. Now put back on your Laker kneepads and get to work!
Ariza's not a douche. It was an unfortunate result from a hard foul on his part. Hard fouls are part of the game.
His actions after the foul are the actions of a douche bag, and his "excuse" that he doesn't remember what happened immediately after the play doesn't pass the sniff test. The OC Register even called him out on it.
I agree 100% and if Ariza would have acted like a normal person not douche he would have looked like he didn't really want Rudy to get hurt. Instead he puffed out his chest and acted like a complete idiot douche bag if not worse!
