Carmelo Anthony: THUG

[JamStone]

Let's see, I'm told I'm wrong for believing that Sasha Vujacic flopped on the Melo foul.

And, two people adamantly believe Melo choke-slammed Sasha to the ground, deserved an automatic ejection for a foul above the shoulders, and is a punk for it.

I state how someone could get poked in the eye, and the player that pokes that person in the eye gets a foul called on him but doesn't get an ejection. No substantive reply except there are a "different set of rules" for different things, and then subsequently the officials just "deemed it excessive" which negates the notion of an "automatic ejection" for a "foul above the shoulders" if an official had to interpret it as excessive.

Polesmoking, you said you know the rulebook and insisted that a foul above the shoulders was an automatic ejection. Here is what you were thinking:

"Officials have been instructed to eject a player who throws a punch, whether or not it connects, or an elbow which makes contact above shoulder level. "

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_k....av=ArticleList

Last time I checked, the hand was not considered an elbow.

Again, that's why I insisted that I didn't think Melo's foul deserved a technical foul or ejection.

Now, Polesmoking wants to tell me how "everyone" thinks and is pointing at me laughing at me. This isn't 2nd grade recess.

First, you were wrong saying it deserved an automatic ejection. Secondly, you didn't respond to my examples of other above the shoulder fouls that aren't automatic ejections. Thirdly, I showed how you were wrong when you applied the "elbow foul above the shoulders" rule to this incident where Melo did NOT use his elbow. Fourthly, being laughed at over the internet when you're behind a computer screen is not that embarrassing. Lastly, get over your egocentric stroking and realize you were wrong with the aforementioned points.

Thanks. As you might put it, match, point, clay court, and sets!

[JamStone]

To refresh why you're wrong. This is what you wrote:

You're right. What Mello did is described in the NBA rule book as an "above the shoulders foul", which is an automatic flagrant foul & ejection. Period. No room for interpretation or consideration of Mello's delicate sensibilities.

Except that only applies when it's an elbow. Carmelo didn't use an elbow.

You do know you're wrong now, don't you?

[monosylab1k]

boy, someone's real defensive now. now a damn essay is written to show how big his e-wang is. there's not a cartoony gif for that?

[JamStone]

boy, someone's real defensive now. now a damn essay is written to show how big his e-wang is. there's not a cartoony gif for that?

where explaining a point to the dumb is considered being defensive happens

[monosylab1k]

where saying "it's just the ing internet, I don't give a " while continuing to reply & get butthurt over every insult & rebuttal thrown at him and posting gifs happens.

[JamStone]

LMAO ... I don't give a if anyone is laughing at me over the internet.

I can still provide clarity to my argument. Would you be so gracious to tell me how my argument is wrong now.

My whole point from the outset was that Melo's foul did not deserve a technical foul or ejection because my opinion was that Sasha flopped. One of PoleSmoking's points was that it was an automatic ejection for being a foul above the shoulders. That's not the rule as I explained, as it applies to elbow fouls.

Why again hasn't Melo been suspended for choke-slamming Vujacic to the ground?

Sorry to poop on your and PoleSmoking's lovefest.

[monosylab1k]

Why again hasn't Melo been suspended for choke-slamming Vujacic to the ground?

politics.

[PoleSmoking]

You do get that this is just the internet, don't you? And, you can believe what you want to believe. There are two people that feel strongly against my opinion, and that's a person that named himself/herself PoleSmoking and a guy that admits he wants to a male midget. Laughing has long started before anyone reads what is posted. And, no one cares anyway. It's the ing internet. Who is pointing at whom? What are they pointing at? It's the internet. You can't see me. You know this is just the internet, don't you?

You want to keep telling me I'm wrong. That's on you. What's the point? Who cares? Yet you keep trying to tell me you're right without responding to my part of the argument that completely kills your point. You want to keep saying you're right yet you haven't answered my examples of fouls above the shoulder that are not automatic ejections. First it was an automatic ejection because it was above the shoulders foul. But, then there are different sets of rules for different things and the officials deemed Melo's foul excessive. You changed your argument, you ass.

Everyone thinks they're right on the internet. I'm laughing at you for thinking it matters to me if anyone is laughing at me over the internet. You know this is just the internet, right? You do, don't you?

That's right, JamStone. This is the internet. But internet or not, the rules of logic and the dictates of reason are not magically suspended. Sorry. It's still planet Earth, and reality is still in full effect. And to answer your question frankly, I guess the answer is that apparently YOU care. And I have yet to see you deliver one single, solitary fact that does violence to my points or to Monosyllable's points. Not one. Merely claiming that you have done so doesn't count. Merely claiming that we have not refuted you does not make it so. Like I said, this IS the internet, but reality still persists.

I already directed you to read the official rule book, and if you did you would see quite clearly that I never changed my argument; what I did was address my argument more specifically to the hypothetical examples that you offered. And your examples proved to be erroneous or irrelevant to the Carmello/Vujacic incident.

Those examples are covered in the rule book, and there are INDEED separate categories of fouls for offense, defense, loose ball situations, inbound situations, etc. I'm not just pulling crazy out of my ass to win an argument. It's a fact, internet or not. This is not some fantasy land where you get to have a billion-dollar bank account and a 12" . We're talking about actual events that happen in reality.

Once again, I sincerely urge you to read the rule book ... and then go yourself. This is done. Over. You adopted a foolish position, you foolishly defended it, and now you are exposed not only as a fool, but a persistent fool who doesn't learn from his mistakes. I feel sorry for you.

[PoleSmoking]

To refresh why you're wrong. This is what you wrote:




Except that only applies when it's an elbow. Carmelo didn't use an elbow.

You do know you're wrong now, don't you?

I hate to even humor you by responding further, but here it goes. I sugguest you read a little bit more of the rule book and give attention to the context of your citation. There are stated exceptions to many of the rules. There are provisions for the refs to declare any foul committed with ANY part of the body either a technical or flagrant foul. It's not just the elbow. And the result is an automatic ejection if the ref deems it excessive. The key, as I said, is whether they deem the act excessive. No contradiction, just different rules for different situations. Just like always. The ref was on the spot and watched the whole thing before deciding it was more than just a garden-variety "impeding the offensive player's progress" foul. It's in the refs court at that point. The ref saw what all of us (except you) saw; Carmello grabbed Vujacic's throat and then tried to throw him backwards. That's a flagrant, not for impeding progress, but for grabbing the throat and following through. Accidentally or not, it doesn't matter.

[PoleSmoking]

Someone told 'melo that Sasha was a snitch.

BTW, that "snitch" stuff was probably the most intelligent and amusing moment in this entire thread, dude. ing hilarious.

[PoleSmoking]

[QUOTE=JamStone]LMAO ... I don't give a if anyone is laughing at me over the internet.

I can still provide clarity to my argument. Would you be so gracious to tell me how my argument is wrong now.

My whole point from the outset was that Melo's foul did not deserve a technical foul or ejection because my opinion was that Sasha flopped. One of PoleSmoking's points was that it was an automatic ejection for being a foul above the shoulders. That's not the rule as I explained, as it applies to elbow fouls.

Why again hasn't Melo been suspended for choke-slamming Vujacic to the ground?

Ok, so if the league says it's kosher, then that's good enough for you, right? LOL! Because the league has been right about so much lately, right? Like the rubber ball and the referee situation, right? They just change the rules to make themselves right, and that's kosher for you, right? LOL! Like Mello's shameful hit-and-run last year got glossed over by David Stern because he wanted Anthony in the All-Star game, right? That crap didn't have anything to do with protecting one of the league's supposed stars and trying to get ratings, right? LOL! In fact, I'm LMFAO!

[JamStone]

Quote and cite those "provisions" and "exceptions" for me, would you please?

For now, let's review what you did post:

What Mello did is described in the NBA rule book as an "above the shoulders foul", which is an automatic flagrant foul & ejection. Period. No room for interpretation or consideration of Mello's delicate sensibilities.

But now there are exceptions?

Then Carmello made a foolish and careless defensive error, and needs to develop better court awareness & better familiarity with the official NBA rule book. Because a hit to the neck or head (i.e. above the shoulders) is an automatic ejection. Period. It's not the officials' fault, and it's not even open to debate or interpretation.

Not open for debate except there are exceptions right?

Intention is totally irrelevant in this instance. You seem to think intention is the major issue here, and that you know what Melo had going on inside his head. You don't, and intention is irrelevant. The rule is the rule is the rule. You want to talk about intention? Then answer me this: Why does Melo seem to have such a hard time remembering the rules of the game, especially when his team is getting embarassed? Weird.

The rule is the rule is the rule ... except you didn't know the rule. You thought the rule was any foul above the shoulders when it was only the elbow above the shoulders. The rule is the rule is the rule.

Viewing the play objectively REQUIRES e technical or ejection BECAUSE of the rules, not despite them. You can't just sidestep the rules here because it's inconvenient to your argument. That's the point. The rules are not some kind of triviality that the officials can choose to suspend whenever it suits them. They are bound by them, in this specific instance perhaps more than any other. It's not a philosophical debate, it's not about opinion or bias. It's ing math:

1 foul above the shoulders = 1 ejection

Except you misstated the rule. But, now there are exceptions?

The fact is they did blow the whistle --for whatever reason-- and called a foul. The foul was above the shoulders, thus an ejection. End of story, end of discussion, end of argument. Game, point & match.

Except it's not a "foul" above the shoulders ... it's "elbow" above the shoulders. Game, point & match.

Actually I do know the exact wording of the NBA rule book.

Apparently not.

The Rule Book is available online at the NBA.com site, read it at your leisure. But I'm done with you now.

I advise you to read it as well.

Everything else since then has just been your stubborn refusal to admit that you were wrong, while everyone else just points and laughs at you.

<<<< me laughing at you

[JamStone]

It's not just the elbow. And the result is an automatic ejection if the ref deems it excessive. The key, as I said, is whether they deem the act excessive.

Except you initially stated there was no room for interpretation or consideration to Melo's sensibilities and not even open for debate or interpretation ... deeming it "excessive" requires interpretation.

[PoleSmoking]

Wrongo, buddy. It's everyone else laughing at you for days. No matter what you say. I guess if you string this debate out long enough, you'll eventually catch me in an apparent contradiction. But it isn't. It never was, and it never will be. The only contradiction is between you and reality. The point is that no matter what, that Carmello/Vujacic play falls into the category of a flagrant foul/ejection. Whether it's the "above the shoulders" rule, or the "excessive contact" rule, it still falls under the category of a flagrant foul. Whether it's automatic and beyond the refs ability to mitigate it, or whether it's a subjective judgement, it was still ruled a flagrant by the refs on the floor. And it was an ejection. So what's your point, really? You're still wrong no matter what, because the refs made the judgement to eject him.

[JamStone]

My point is that you initially stated it was an above the shoulders foul so it meant it was an automatic ejection, no room for interpretation or debate. And, I'm pointing out that that rule didn't apply because it wasn't an elbow. You were wrong. Admit it. Wrong. Don't pronounce the "W." Wrong.

The "automatic ejection" is one of your main points in why I'm wrong, that the foul was an automatic ejection because it happened above the shoulders. Using the other flagrant foul rule, there is room for interpretation and debate, room you stated was not there. Thereby, you were wrong.

So, backtracking, you use the alternative rule for flagrant fouls, that the referees "deemed the foul excessive," which was changing your argument. I don't argue the referees didn't use that rule to eject him. He was ejected. They had to use some rule to eject him. I'm just saying it was a subjective interpretation of the rule. An official "deeming a foul excessive" requires discretion, interpretation. And, that's why way back when this thread started I said I disagreed with the notion that it was a technical foul or ejection because Sasha flopped. Because it was interpreted as excessive. If you realized Sasha flopped, you wouldn't determine the contact excessive. You agree with what the officials saw as a flagrant foul. I disagreed with it.

But, your whole argument near the beginning of the thread that it was not open up for debate and it was an automatic ejection was incorrect. Wrong. And, that's where you changed your argument to the official "deeming the foul excessive" to warrant ejection.

It was an interpretation of a rule by the official. In order to consider the foul excessive, it requires the official to subjectively determine the foul was excessive. Meaning it was NOT an "automatic ejection." Meaning had the official realized that Sasha flopped, he wouldn't have been ejected. And, he certainly didn't eject Melo based on what you initially stated as a "foul above the shoulders."

I say Sasha flopped. You say Sasha didn't flop. Neither one of us can prove whether he did or not. That means it's just a matter of opinion. But, you wrote post after post after post about how it was an "AUTOMATIC EJECTION BASED ON A FOUL ABOVE THE SHOULDERS RULE." And, you were wrong.

And, why can you laugh at the league not giving Melo a suspension because they've done so many things wrong, but I can't believe an official made the wrong call?


You've been done. You're over-cooked.

[PoleSmoking]

Holy ing , man. You're totally obsessed and insane. ! You just keep going and going and going. I've never seen anything like it before. Don't you see that now you're not even talking about your OWN original position, because it got demolished? ... now all you're trying to do is pick apart every ing word I say to try and gain a petty advantage in an argument you already lost days ago? It's really sad and pathetic. I only continued to post because I thought you cared about understanding the actual rules, but now you're gonna pick and choose the out of the rule book that you think supports your dead argument, and ignore all the ACTUAL ING special rules and exceptions. You seriously dare to mock me by claiming that there are NOT special exceptions on just about every rule? You try to make me look foolish by pointing out when these special exceptions contradict the meaning you want to believe? Go yourself. Seriously. I'm so done with you. I've lost patience with you. You're a total ing basket-case. That's all there is to it. You're beyond hope and reason and logic. Just go kill yourself or something.

[JamStone]

[dickface]

what the are you laughing at, pal?

Go yourself, then Weeman, then Tom Brady.

pot meet kettle.

[JamStone]

Laughing at his meltdown. I sling insults plenty. I don't take it that serious.

But, he just went loony.

That's what I'm laughing at.

[PoleSmoking]

what the are you laughing at, pal?



pot meet kettle.

Laughing my ing ass off at that! For real. Like I said, everyone is laughing at JamStone. LOL. That was far from a meltdown, that was just the terminus. I'm done with you. Really. Completely. No more. I don't have the heart to go on clowning you.

[JamStone]

[dickface]

did you just catch a Chappelle skit on comedy central or something?

[JamStone]

did you just catch a Chappelle skit on comedy central or something?

No, mono, I'm still laughing at your friend PoleSmoking's meltdown.

[dickface]

Chappelle's Show is funnier.

[JamStone]

I beg to differ. This is some pretty funny stuff. I especially like the "you seriously dare to mock me" line. But, thanks for your opinion, mono.

Holy ing , man. You're totally obsessed and insane. !

You seriously dare to mock me by claiming that there are NOT special exceptions on just about every rule? You try to make me look foolish by pointing out when these special exceptions contradict the meaning you want to believe?

Go yourself. Seriously. I'm so done with you. I've lost patience with you. You're a total ing basket-case. That's all there is to it. You're beyond hope and reason and logic.

Just go kill yourself or something.