Reply With Quote
Not untill the NBA Finals.When's the first Joey Crawford game?
Got to keep his precious minutes in check.
Oh, so you're going to take GSH's lead and start calling names too? Oh well, here goes:
Nobody ever said it was a cut and dry issue, but thanks for the strawman. Doing that hand gesture , however, is a ing easy call, and ing about it is stupid. Will it be called 100 percent of the time? Who knows? But if it's called 100 percent of the time, it's completely justified. If you about that, you're stupid. If Hubie Brown es about that, he's stupid. Players that think they need to make that particular hand gesture while "blowing off steam" are going to find themselves getting technicals far more often than not.
If Lamar Odom stands there like a ing and doesn't say anything, it is, as you said, subjective to the referee's interpretation. So why are you ing about it? The ref decided not to tee him up. Only a moron thinks this is a cut and dry issue.
Who the is Hubie Brooks?
Not untill the NBA Finals.When's the first Joey Crawford game?
Got to keep his precious minutes in check.
You guys missed on the last Lakers' foul by gasol, and the circus he put on thereafter.
No T.
It's going to be a loooong season for Lakers' opponents.
In last night's Spurs game, the use of the new rule was also inconsistent because of a couple of technicals that they DIDN'T make against Spurs players. In several pre-season games, the refs T'd up players for exactly the same amount of "demonstration" that Spurs players exhibited. I never said that there was any conspiracy against the Spurs. The point is that players and coaches should not be uncertain what is going to draw a foul, and what isn't. And the refs shouldn't be hesitant to make the same call against a star player that they would make against a rookie.
I found an article at Probasketballtalk about the subject that states some of the same things I was talking about. Maybe they did a better job.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...cal-crackdown/ Here are a couple of comments from that article:
"Well done NBA League office. You issue an edict on players complaining aimed in part to stop making referees the focus of games — and you take it so far you put the focus back on the referees." One of the main points I was making. If the rule is not implemented VERY consistently, it will have the exact opposite effect from the one desired. I'm all for the new rule, and putting a stop to all the complaining. But if they aren't even-handed, it will call even more attention to the refs, and bring even more complaints about them being biased.
"The league said it ins uted the crackdown after focus groups and market research said people were tired of players complaining after every call. League officials have gone to every team and explained the new line in the sand on what will and will not lead to a technical.... But so far that line has been enforced about as consistently as block/charge calls."Contrary to what ObstructedView claims, there were a lot more than two games in which the new rule was enforced. In the pre-season, the T's were handed out very inconsistently. The thought was that by the regular season, they would have the bugs worked out. But in both opening night games, there were still discrepancies.
Most of the adults I've discussed this with have been able to understand it. For this rule to work, it has to be consistent. And I think that allowing "a little bit" of complaining isn't going to be possible, because it's too subjective. It almost has to be all-or-nothing, or it's going to backfire on them.
Some people say that after the initial shock, the complaining will stop and they won't have to enforce the rule as strictly - which seems like where we were in the Spurs first game. Sorry, but I don't think that randomly enforcing the rule is going to work out for them.
So at least you (sort of) admit that it is subjective to the referree now. You did say it was a no-brainer call before.
Our point remains (and Hubie's too) why is Lamar Odom allowed to demonstrate in front of the official with no consequence while others are getting slapped with technicals for what IMO are even lesser offenses.
Maybe you can answer that, since your smarter than all of us put together.
He made a mistake. We all know he meant Hubie Brown. Why do you have to be such an obnoxious asshole? Did your dad yell at you too much when you were a kid? Damn... get some counseling.
Hubie Brooks was a major league baseball player. Famous names that sound alike can get crossed in someone's head. It's part of being human.
Personally, I don't like the all-or-nothing approach, players IMO have to be allowed to vent frustrations during the course of the game. It should be subjective to the officials what is appropriate and fair as opposed to what is going over the line.
IMO, what Kevin Martin did came close to that line but didn't cross it, while Odumb's actions clearly DID. He didn't plant himself in an officials face with a long stare down and hand gesture like Odom did. There was no pause at all to make a scene/demonstrate to an official; in fact he immediately started running the opposite direction, which directly conforms with the spirit of David Stern's own edict, that you found and generously posted earlier, GSH.
What do you think, GSH?"When somebody thinks they've been fouled, and they spend -- rather than getting back on defense, they spend the entire time explaining to the referee all the way up. Stop it. That's only designed to undermine the official."
NBA tried to do this a few years ago. Unsucsessfully. Yall dont remember?
It would be successful if officials actually used the directives given to them in a fair and consistent manner across the board.
I don't recall the previous attempt. Why did that one fail?
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...s#cite_note-28
At the start of the 2006-07 NBA season, the NBA ins uted a new rule regarding in-game player complaints. The "no tolerance rule", as it was referred to by players and the media, allowed referees to call technical fouls when players complained too vehemently about calls.
The season started with a e in the number of technical fouls and ejections. There were "one-hundred-four technicals and seven ejections in the first fifty-one games," while "only seven games of the first fifty-one games thus far have had no technical fouls".[29] Denver Nuggets forward Carmelo Anthony, who would later be suspended for his participation in a fight later that year, was suspended on opening night of the season after two technical fouls.
“ Although Anthony wasn't looking at or speaking to referee Ted Washington, he received a second technical with the Nuggets behind by two points in the third quarter. He got the "T" for throwing his headband to the floor after being called for his fourth foul.[30] ”
Some observers viewed the rule as unfair and taking the passion out of the game; others believed that it only served to take pressure off of referees who made bad calls.
“ I don't like it. Basketball is an emotional game; guys are always going to express their thoughts about calls. ... There are times you are going to disagree. You shouldn't get a "T" for nit-picky things.[31] ”
—Corliss Williamson, Sacramento Kings
“ Over-the-top complaints and gestures should certainly be penalized, but the rule goes too far. Does David Stern believe that disallowing the players' protests will fool fans into accepting the infallibility of the refs?[32] ”
—Charley Rosen, Fox Sports
Others agreed with the rule, viewing it as a much needed policy to cut down on the "whining" by players in the league.
“ Nobody likes the scowling, the arm-waving, the stomping and ball-slamming, certainly not after a meaningless call in the second quarter of some game in mid-November. And such ridiculousness was one reason why too many consumers perceived NBA players as self-absorbed, overbearing, churlish and out of touch. ... Too many are out of touch with the people who pay the freight. Who pays to come to the arena to see this demonstrative complaining? Nobody. The notion some players have put forth, that the NBA is trying to take the emotion from the game, is so preposterous it's insulting.[33] ”
—Michael Wilbon, Washington Post
After the initial e at the start of the season, the amount of technical fouls and ejections declined significantly towards the middle of the year. Several players, including Denver Nuggets guard Allen Iverson, were still ejected on technical fouls; Iverson's ejection came during his first game against his former team, the Philadelphia 76ers, and he was later fined by the league for claiming that referee Steve Javie ejected him on the basis of a feud the two supposedly had.[34]
Like Dennis Miller says: I don't want to go on a rant here, but -
The real truth? I mind it a lot more when Kobe Bryant complains, and a lot less when Tim Duncan does it. I suspect most NBA fans feel the same, to some degree. I'm honest enough with myself to admit it.
I think that screaming in a refs face, or charging at one, should always have drawn an immediate ejection. Those are threatening acts, and should never have been tolerated - from any player, at any time. And a T just isn't enough.
I think that a lot of the problems refs have, they bring on themselves. There are always going to be bad calls, because they are human. But there are times when refs "swallow their whistles", for no apparent reason. There are times when they call every little thing, again for no apparent reason. They call stars differently than journeymen, and rookies different than everyone else. The refs are professionals, but so are the players. And inconsistency makes people all crazy-like.
I can understand that too much whining and complaining isn't good for the game. But, honestly, most of the time I don't think too much about it. Mostly it bothers me when a player commits an obvious foul or goal-tend, and then es when it gets called. But I don't see any way to get rid of the "bad" complaining, without getting rid of the "good" complaining.
I don't mind the new rule. I do think that watching players walk away from horrible calls like robots feels a little unnatural, but I'll get used to it. My biggest problem is that nobody really wants to turn the players into robots. So they are going to allow "a little bit" of complaining. Which means it will be subjective - too harsh some times, and probably called less against superstars. And if it's going to be that way, I'd rather they just left things alone.
Unlike some fans, I don't think Tim Duncan is a disgrace. I can't imagine that thought ever even crossing my mind. I don't believe that Tim argues any more than a lot of other players. But then again, I never believed that Manu used his long hair to draw more charging calls. But I guess George Karl, and people like him, are en led to their opinions.
Every got damn rule this league makes doesn't apply to superstars like Kobe/Lebron/Wade etc and doesn't apply to the lakers. I guarantee they'll get away with a ton of this shut during the year, and the rest of the league will pick up more of these types of weak techs. Rookies and marginal role players will pick them up like crazy.
The NBA with their superstar rules isn't unbiased enough to handle policing their own league. They're going to be biased because they always have been. If they really want the complaining to stop they'd set a clear cut boundary for speaking to or gesturing at a red and employ an unbiased 3rd party to review every game film then start fining players for every time they cross the set boundary. If you leave this up to officials to interpret you're going to get even more biased BS.
You didn't really address my argument about Martin's actions vs Odumbs, in light of Stern's own directives that you yourself posted earlier. Do you or don't you think Kevin Martin's actions conformed better within the letter of Stern's own words than Lamar Odumbs actions? Which one (or both) warranted the technical being called? In your opinion.
And I think its fairly easy to spot the 'bad' complaining and take appropriate measures. Lamar Odumb making a scene in front of a ref because he got called for running over a guy who was a good 2 feet in front of the circle would be a textbook example of this. In my humble opinion (which I agree could be biased to a certain extent)
When did any of the rules apply to the Lakers?
I'll say one more thing about this, and then drop it. See if you can figure out why I think the new rule will be enforced arbitrarily:
Does anyone even remember last season? The rules call for a 1-game suspension with 15 technical fouls, and another 1 game for every 2 technicals after that. Dwight Howard got called for a total of 17 technical fouls, but never served a single game's suspension. Why? The league rescinded 3 of them. That allowed him to magically finish the season with 14 T's, one less than the number for a suspension.
Kendrick Perkins of the Celtics also collected 14 technicals, then never got another. Not because he didn't deserve any. He just seemed to become immune to them.
The counter re-sets in the playoffs. A player that gets 7 techs in the playoffs is suspended for 1 game.
Kendrick Perkins got his 6th AND 7th technicals in Game 5 of the ECF. Automatic suspension. That meant that he was suspended for Game 6, right? Wrong. The league rescinded one of his T's, and he got to play in Game 6. Amazingly, he never got another for the rest of the playoffs. Probably because he became such a boy scout.
Also in the playoffs, Dwight Howard had 5 technical fouls, and 2 flagrant foul points. (4 flagrant points gets you a 1-game suspension) Then he picked up his 6th technical, leaving him only 1 away from a suspension - so the league rescinded that T, leaving him with only 5 once again.
Then he elbowed Samuel Dalembert in the head. The rules call for an immediate ejection for an intentional elbow to the head. Instead, the refs gave him a technical foul and let him stay in the game. What?
The league later gave Howard a 1-game suspension for the elbow. That makes everything okay, right?
Not really. Had they called the flagrant 2, Howard would have gotten a suspension. But another flagrant in the playoffs would have given him a mandatory 2-game suspension. So by giving him a technical foul and a suspension, they didn't increase his flagrant foul points.
Perkins, Howard, and Kobe Bryant all had 6 techs in the playoffs. And so they all changed their behavior for the rest of the post-season. Right? Not so much. But a lot of people don't know that the refs conference before every game, and one of the things they discuss is who is 1 call away from a suspension. (That's not a guess, it's a fact.) A lot of people believe that players become bullet-proof when they are facing a suspension. And only something egregious could draw that last technical or flagrant. Unless the player is Rasheed Wallace, of course.
Later, Stu Jackson bragged that no player has ever been suspended for flagrants or for technicals in the playoffs. No , Stu? You never will, as long as you enforce the rules arbitrarily, and rescind fouls.
Now the real question: Why WOULDN'T the new technical rule be enforced inconsistently and arbitrarily? The rule may have changed, but not the basic philosophy of the league. Regardless of what Obstructed thinks, history is on my side on this one. Not to mention the erratic use of the new rule in the pre-season, and the first few games.
Done.
My issue with the new rule is this scenario. It's a heated playoff game, a few of the players already have one technical, including a star player. The star player is called for a foul at a critical point in the game. He reacts to the call, not too over the top, but under the new rules still gets a T. He gets thrown out of the game for picking up his second T. Almost the entire team is complaining, including the coaches, do they all get T'd up?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like all the excessive complaining either, but it's a emotional game, and in the playoffs that emotion is ramped up. I think the NBA is setting themselves up for an ugly scenario to occur.
Seems to me, the league really doesn't want to suspend anyone if it can help it (thus the rescinding of 1 tech to keep guys from being suspended who are over the limit), but that's all the leeway they are willing to give. So a guy who goes over the limit and gets a "gift" of a 1 tech rescindment best be on pins and needles after that. So the "philosophy" of the league is working just fine, IMO. In that regard, at least. The real problem to me right now is the inconsistent application of the rules/jargon that lead to the techs in the 1st place.
I though RJ would get a T after his reaction on his 4th foul and Manu for his reaction after he fouled Dunleavy
When did I say the Lamar Odom play was a no-brainer technical? I said the Kevin Martin play was a no-brainer technical.
Ask the official from the Laker game. Better yet, see your own quote that it's subjective to the referee. Translation: It's a judgment call. IMO = "in my opinion". Whether you think one offense is lesser is irrelevant.
My original post had to do with the Martin call. What Martin did was an easy call because he made the hand gesture. It's a point of emphasis. Will refs call that hand gesture 100 percent of the time? Probably not, but they're completely justified if they do.
Gee, seems like I've said this all before. I guess I'll keep explaining it until you actually read one of my posts and pay attention to it.
Yep, I was expecting a whistle on both of those plays. Manu really deserved it.
I made a simple post about a simple technical call, and I got two of you ranting and raving and calling me names. At what point am I allowed to respond to your hostility in kind?
If someone's going to post about how stupid someone else is and how smart they are, they might make sure to get the names of people right. Helps them to look mor smartr.
I read your post the 1st time (and the rehashed 2nd, 3rd, etc). You keep saying the tech on Kevin Martin is a "no-brainer" call that the refs were justified in calling, which I disagree with. It wasn't a tech last year either, FYI.
You were also given the direct quote from David Stern which basically lays out what the league is pissed about and what the league should be concerned about. Which is guys getting in the officials faces and arguing/demonstrating instead of running the other way. Now with the spirit of Stern's words in mind, who in your opinion should be assessed a technical, the bag that gets into the officals face & stares them down waving his arms back and forth repeatedly while his teammates are running the other way? Or the guy who turns and runs the other way and makes a meek gesture of dissapproval while running the opposite direction?
Btw, do you really think you're smarter than Hubie Brown? (thanks for pointing out that mistake btw, because I'm sure everybody was confused)
He's much more effective at getting T-bags.
Doing that hand gesture was about the surest way to get a technical last year. That gesture was mentioned as a point of emphasis prior to this summer when they announced that they were going to crack down. That makes it as close to a no-brainer call as you're going to find. You're welcome to disagree with my take on the situation, but I didn't come in here trying to start a fight, especially with your original post that caused me to reply.
Look, when a crew tees up one team for doing something and then completely ignores the other team's superstar doing the exact same thing, come find me and I'll be right there with you. You and I both know the refs are going to up and do that at some point. Until then, I have yet to see a case for being inconsistent. As mentioned, I'm really surprised RJ and Manu didn't get a tech last night for arguing. This new initiative may die the same death the one from five years ago did.
Well since I'm welcome to disagree with your oh-so-innocent "I really didn't mean to start trouble" take, I will. I don't recall anyone ever getting a technical for making a small hand gesture of protest (not even directed AT the officials) as Martin did. But hey, apparently I just haven't been watching the right games. (ya right).
So I went and looked up some additional info on this.
http://www.daily-news-trends.com/tag...al-foul-rules/
I have a hard time seeing how a simple "ah,phooey" hand gesture (not even done AT the official mind you) equates with an "aggressive gesture".Referees have been instructed to call a technical for:
• Players making aggressive gestures, such as air punches, anywhere on the court.
• Demonstrative disagreement, such as when a player incredulously raises his hands, or smacks his own arm to demonstrate how he was fouled.
• Running directly at an official to complain about a call.
• Excessive inquiries about a call, even in a civilized tone.
In addition, referees have been instructed to consider calling technicals on players who use body language to question or demonstrate displeasure, or say things like, “Come on!” They can also consider technicals for players who “take the long path to the official”, walking across the court to make their case.
Conversely, Lamar Odom's little demonstration fits perfectly among the criteria of several of the bullet points, yet goes uncalled.
Btw, you never answered me before, do you think your smarter than Hubie Brown, yes or no?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
