Re: Fisher Suspended, Kobe Given Flagrent Agreed, unless punches are thrown there shouldn't be suspensions. It's a joke what the league is doing.
It is what it is. If "unnatural basketball act" gets somebody suspended, then I sure as hell expect Derek to get suspended for what he did.
LOL thanks for being a *disagree without the attack please*, but anyways I dont care what anyone says Fisher deserved that shit. End of story.
Re: Fisher Suspended, Kobe Given Flagrent I'd rather have Fisher at point then either the guys they have in place
Re: Fisher Suspended, Kobe Given Flagrent I'd rather have Shannon Brown, he's also not in a prolonged shooting slump like Fish.
Fisher deserved the suspension. Haven't read anything about the hit, what the fuck was he thinking? just pissed? I guess it won't hurt us in game 3 and I'd loooove to see Shannon get more minutes.
Fisher was just trying to send a message, and I think that was sent loud and clear. The Lakers are not the same team they were in last years postseason. They're not afraid to get physical when they need to. However...I do think he could have chosen a better way of sending that message instead of leveling Luis Scola and having to sit out a game because of it. James Posey must be smiling somewhere, proud of that hit.
Re: Fisher Suspended, Kobe Given Flagrent Purposely swinging an elbow into a player is an obvious flagrant foul -- "unsportsmanlike conduct". If you want to say Artest committed a foul first, I don't have a problem with that view. But there's no way Kobe's elbow can be considered just a normal foul. Especially considering he kneed and elbowed Shane Battier just the game before.
I'm not sure it was that unsportsmanlike, it hit chest. The Battier one was unnecessary, but a tech to me. Not hard enough to be a flagrant.
I am arguing discretion, nothing more. I honestly have no problem with it if a guy has an elbow to my head, just as long as I don't get him in the neck or head.
The league takes elbow fouls seriously. If its done with intent and makes contact, that's typically going to be ruled a flagrant foul. What its saying is that its up to refs discretion whether they eject the player, or choose to give him a flagrant 2. It's not saying the refs may choose to do nothing when a player is intentionally throwing elbows. It's there in black and white -- an elbow foul is considered unsportsmanlike, and that is by definition what a flagrant foul is.
I read it and it sounded as if discretion is involved in both 1 and 2. People are caught by elbows and not given flagrants.
That sentence on its own is ambiguous. It either means (1) the refs have the discretion of calling one or the other, or (2) it means the refs also have the discretion to call neither. But taking the paragraph as a whole, they clearly call elbow fouls unsportsmanlike. It's obvious from the tape that Kobe wound up, and delivered the elbow with intent. It's understood by the league what his history is, and what happened in just the prior game. A flagrant-1 foul is totally reasonable, and the Lakers should be happy it was only assessed after the fact.
Sure, a flagrant 1 could have been called, but it isn't crystal clear. The guy had an elbow to his head, I want him off me in that situation, the elbow didn't materialize out of nothing and the rule is ambiguous as you said. The guy he was hitting is no saint so I don't think history factors much in this case.
