I said you were "trying to reason" but I didn't mean to imply that you were reasonable. And I have to say, I have to give you props for sticking around here today. You may be a completely misguided Laker fan but I think most of us like having you around. The other LA fans over here yapping are just reinforcing the negative stereotype.
Horford said he wasn't trying to hurt Ford either. Both were going for a block. Both of their intentions was getting the block. You say Horford clearly had intent to fould, but it looks that way because of Ford's actions. As I said before, had Rudy decided to turn to do a reverse dunk, then the foul would have looked much worse, similar to what happened with Ford, and then intent woudl have looked differently.
Also, in hockey, nobody cheers when someone like Bertuzzi blindsides and cheapshots someone. I was cheering when Roy, LMA, and Outlaw went after Ariza, personally.
EXCEPTION: Rule 12A--Section I. i. Anyone guilty of illegal contact which occurs during a dead ball may be assessed (1) a technical foul, if the contact is deemed to be unsportsmanlike in nature, or (2) a flagrant foul, if unnecessary and/or excessive contact occurs. j. Free throws awarded for a technical foul must be attempted by a player in the game when the technical foul is assessed. (1) If a substitute has been beckoned into the game or has been recognized by the officials as being in the game prior to a technical foul being assessed, he is eligible to attempt the free throw(s). (2) If the technical foul is assessed before the opening tap, any player listed in the scorebook as a starter is eligible to attempt the free throw(s). (3) If a technical foul is assessed before the starting lineup is indicated, any player on the squad may attempt the free throw(s). k. A technical foul, unsportsmanlike act or flagrant foul must be called for a par-ticipant to be ejected. A player, coach or trainer may be ejected for: (1) An elbow foul which makes contact shoulder level or below (2) Any unsportsmanlike conduct where a technical foul is assessed (3) A flagrant foul where unnecessary and/or excessive contact occurs Section IV--Flagrant Foul a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team. PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. (EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e.) (4) The injured player may not return to the game. (5) A player will be ejected if he commits two flagrant fouls in the same game. b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpret-ed to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team. PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, his coach will select a substitute and any player from the team is eligible to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e. (4) The injured player may return to the game at any time after the free throws are attempted. (5) This is an unsports-manlike act and the offender is ejected. get your rules reference from the nba handbook, not wikipedia
Well if I could find a link to it, I would. But you can't argue the last part of what wikipedia has posted. The delineation of the rule has definitely evolved
Yeah of course lakers catch a break...idk how people think he was going for the ball in a clean foul, if he was he wouldn't swing his arm across rudy's head...and if it was an accident wouldn't you expect him to go to rudy right after to make sure he is alright? I hope pau gasol and sergio kick trevors ass!!!
I agree that definitions evolve, but so must the written rule, this is what we need to be asking for. Loopholes abound everywhere, as concerned fans we need to do whatever we can to sew them up. for future reference for anyone who is interested http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList and here is the full rule set http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html
Dude, you're quoting Wikipedia????? Like that's an authorataive source??? Here's a link to the OFFICIAL NBA rule book at nba.com: http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList Please show me where the words intent or intentional are used. BNM
i try Honestly, its incidents like this that are the reason I hang out here. Who the fuck wants everybody agreeing 100% of the time. That would be very boring. ...but i do mean what i say, im not just arguing for the sake of arguing
From this shot from LA times it doesn't look like Ariza had his eyes on the ball. http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-03/45487553.jpg
hold on to your shorts! http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/57830/20090310/lakers_odom_suspended_for_one_game/
Seems fair. And by the way I'm not concerned about this hurting us because the Lakers are playing the Rockets and we need the Rockets to lose. Odom has been playing like shit lately and you could make a pretty strong argument the Lakers will play better without him. -Pop
I got it. I just typed in flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 in google and wikipedia was the first source. Usually wikipedia would have had the exact rule down, I didn't think it didn't. My interest is what it says at the bottom of the wikipedia link. That the delineation of the rules has definitely evolved. I mean look at what just happened. Ariza didn't get suspended, was there excessive force? Yes, but no suspension. Why not? That's what LOTB is talking about.
From the angle of the replays he could not have ogtten to the ball except thru the head and if Rudy had not ducked a little I doubt that Ariza would have even hit the ball. And most importantly Ariza grabbed Rudy's wrist and held on turning him nearly around in the air and causing him to not be able to break his fall. THIS WAS FLAGRANT IN ANYONE'S BOOK OR SHOULD BE!
Understand, I don't disagree, but flagrant does not carry a requisite suspension... so arguing if it is flagrant or not has nothing to do with whether he should be suspended or not.
ugh...are you messing with me? I swear Ive pointed this out on 5 different threads. Please look at the play in slow mo again. Ignore everything except the "grab" you claim...Just look at it several times, please... Ariza didnt grab anything. Both of their momuntum brought their arms together and made contact at the wrists. I made Rudys fall worse but it was in no way on purpose. Just part of the contact
