Id be fucking livid...of course. Id be more pissed with the little dance Ariza did after rather than the foul. Blocking the shot was within the realm of possibility so how can I hate on a player for that.
Well then why are you telling us to be objective?!? This at least the second (possibly third) game in a row where an LA player has "unintentionally" but overzealously committed a dangerous foul on one of our players when they're being blown out. I know I said this in another post but this is a pattern of behavior for the Lakers when they come into the Rose Garden. They can't win there so they just start doing this crazy and reckless stuff. I know the Blazers can't win in Staples either but can you imagine any of our players doing something like this? It just wouldn't happen. Yeah, that shot was definitely within the realm of possibility... unfortunately Rudy was born with a head and blocked the "block" with it.
being pissed and being blind to the facts are two different things. If Kobe broke his ankle stepping on another players foot I would be pissed at that player for even being there even though its obviously not his fault
Oh please, that's a ridiculous comparison. It would be somewhat relevant to this discussion if the other player slipped his foot directly under Kobe while he was up in the air and had no way to adjust his momentum. That's just lame, even for you. And what would you think if every time that same team came into the Staples Center one of these "accidents" happened to one of your players? You know we like (or maybe I should say "tolerate") you here but who are you to say we're being blind to the facts? We think you're being blind to the facts but we're not over in the Laker forum saying it. Anyway, it's all good... it's just not a good time to try and reason with us.
Part of the issue is that Jackson has called his players out for being soft. They were completely bullied by Boston in the Finals last year and he wants them to get physical. He was given an opportunity to say Ariza went too far, but declined to even comment, even to say he hopes Rudy is okay. This incident is just more Zen Master bullshit. Well, it didn't work. His team still got punked.
I am mystified why you would come here and try to rationalize the foul on Rudy to a bunch of people who will not look at it rationally, myself included. Cut your losses and move on. There is nothing you can say here that will make me see that this was just "part of the game" and "a good hard foul". To me it is further proof that the Lakers are bunch of preening, chest thumping bullies that try to hurt players when they can't get it done any other way on the court. You will NEVER be able to get me to see otherwise. I have put up this this Laker shit for 31 years, and sadly will have to tolerate their existence for many more. The Lakers have always been like this and they will always be like this. Darlings of the NBA, favorite team of front-runners across the country, always on the better end of lopsided trades and the most arrogant collection of fucks in the NBA. Your best player is a rapist. Your third best player is a drug addled moron. And now your high energy guy is thug. Stay Classy Lakers.
I disagree with BNM. Intent has everything to do with it. In the interpretation of the rules the difference between a flagrant 2 and a flagrant 1 is if there was intent or not. Ariza was not trying to hurt anyone, just making a play on the ball. I don't see any correlation between this and the Al Horford one. Horford intentionally went at Ford's head and not the ball.
Thanks for reminding me why I'm looking forward to buying that oceanfront property in western Arizona some day. -Pop
Disagree with me all you want. I didn't write the rule. Please go read it and quote the passage where intent is mentioned. Hint: it's not. The difference between flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 is the degree of contact (again, nothing to do with intent). Flagrant 1 is defined as unecessary contact. Flagrant 2 is defined as unecessary and excessive contact. No mention of intent anywhere in the rule book. How can you possibly know these things. Are you a mind reader. Get real, you know NOTHING about either players intent. Horford did not intentionally go for Ford's head. He reacted to the ball fake, swung where the ball would have been, and hit Ford in the head and he was punsihed accordingly - regardless of his intent. Becuase, according to the rule book, intent isn't a factor. BNM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul Types of flagrant fouls The flagrant foul rule is described in several subsections of NBA Rule Number 12. The most extensive section is 12B (Personal Fouls) Section IV (Flagrant Fouls). There are two types of flagrant fouls defined: flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. Flagrant 2 is the more serious infraction. A flagrant 2 foul results in immediate ejection, whereas two flagrant 1 fouls are required before the player is ejected. Although the delineation between these two rules has evolved, the general distinction has been whether the excessive contact was intentional. I take from what is admitted. Ariza apologized and said he wasn't trying to hurt Rudy. Just didn't want to give up an easy layup. Sometimes players have lack of judgment when their adrenaline is pumping and instinct takes over. All I see is some bitter Blazer fan that can't get over it. Horford clearly had intent to foul on his play.
The F2 we have already shown is based on action, not intent, and it was the correct call. There is currently not a rule that I can find that says a suspension is required if you knock someone in the back of the head. I also can not find a rule saying that you get a mandatory suspension for taunting, the closest thing you could label his strut as in terms of current rules. Between these two actions, one would have to carry a mandatory for us Blazer fans to demand a suspension, and it simply isn't there. This isn't to say there shouldn't be a rule, or that it is in the spirit of the NBA to allow this sort of thing (they add all sorts of rules to keep players safe) it just means it hasn't been addressed and inked yet. As for inconsistency in suspensions following a F2, the league needs to rework their rules to include mandatory suspensions for head swipes on drives if they indeed want to deter it, otherwise players will have to rely on perceived intent after the play and judgment by the league to keep these from happening... and in terms of player safety, I would rather not have that be left to objectivity, thus I whole heartedly support a review of the rules. While I may see the same video as DR and completely disagree on if there was intent or not (for the record, I think you are nuts, but I generally won't argue over opinions... I find it futile), the fact remains that there is no rule covering intent and suspension, so flaming over it doesn't make any difference at this point, I am just thankful that nobody was permanently injured. Our best bet as fans from ANY team would be to take these two cases (and others that are similar), and express concern to the Association, saying that there is significant risk of injury from this type of play, intent or no, and that the rules need to be rewritten to discourage this sort of play in the future. If the rule is put in place that blows from behind will carry a 5 game suspension, wether it was intentional or not, injury or no, people will think twice before being this careless. There should be no bias or homerism in this... nobody (reasonable) wants to see season or career ending injuries, so I think everyone can get behind this, and should, since there is obviously so much emotion over this issue.
