Reply With Quote
Manu exaggerates everything to the 10th degree and Artest got suspended because of it. Manu the king of flops.
I don't know why some people are so upset when others speak of Manu flopping. Again (I think I said it twice in this thread) flopping doesn't mean that Manu wasn't hit. It means he exaggerates contact when he's hit. That doesn't mean that he's a bad player. It doesn't mean that he doesn't get hit a lot. It doesn't mean that Artest didn't intend to hit him. It just means that he exaggerates contact when he gets hit.
Manu exaggerates everything to the 10th degree and Artest got suspended because of it. Manu the king of flops.
Actually, he's the prince of flops. Darrell Armstrong is the king.
Derek Fisher is the lord of flops then.
And Vlade is the God to whom they all bow.
And John Stockton is Chuck Norris.
That's so stupid. The playoffs are about hard fouls. I didn't find Artest's particularly malicious.
All of the people he harmed in those incidents were floppers, so it's not like Ron actually did anything intentionally to hurt them. Even if they exxagerated the contact, Ron should be protected because, um, they exxagerated the hit.
Why does flopping even have to be brought up in the 1st place at all? I don't know, but it seemed like a good defense for someone who intentionally tried to take out a Spur with a cheap shot above in the head area, after being suspended a year for violence.
I'm not upset, I think it's funny that apparently Ron only got in trouble because Manu flopped, according to a few. It had nothing to do with the intentional forearm, but because of a flop.
I also think after that lip incident the head office was watching the rest of the game in slow motion so they wouldn't miss any attempt at retribution. And they didn't.
Interesting point. Anyone here think Manu might have gotten a fine if Artest had behaved himself the entire game? I think it's possible.I also think after that lip incident the head office was watching the rest of the game in slow motion so they wouldn't miss any attempt at retribution. And they didn't.
Aw, give him a break. He's got all his bull pent up from not being able to post on the Nazi Kings board.Me thinks you haven't gotten the message from the league office yet!When you're in over your head, the best thing to do is quit digging!
If anyone is to blame, it's the refs for letting him get in three cheap shots without escalating at least one of them to a F1 to get control of the game. Damn.
The good thing is that I'll bet game 3 will be called REAL tight. Ronnie isn't even on a leash: Stern has ahold of his ing collar.
I actually think it will be interesting to see the Kings offensively without Artest. I thought they forgot a lot of what made the Kings good offensively. I expect to see a lot more Bibby and a whole lot more involvement of Brad Miller in the flow of the offense. The Spurs have a much more difficult time covering that than they do Artest one on one.
Actually I think he flopped on Ron's intentional blow less than Ron did on Manu's accidental elbow at the start of the game. Seems like Manu sent that huge of a man down to the floor. It's called flopping and I discount it in both incidents. I still contend that it has more to do with Ron's previous history.
Interesting point. I agree with you.
Denial is a river in Egypt, Cleopatra...
Bull , an intentional hit to the head is an automatic suspension numnuts.
Is it? All I know that it says in the rules is that elbow fouls above the shoulders and punching fouls are supposed to be automatic ejections.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...arc&id=2420082In Artest's case, though, this is about more than message-sending. The rules clearly state that intentional contact above the shoulders will result in a one-game suspension.
Here's the rule that I see ..
So if it was deliberate (which most people think it was) and if it was an elbow (which is still up for debate) then he should have been ejected. Nothing says automatic suspension.If the deliberate elbow contact is above shoulder level, the player will be ejected. If the elbow contact is shoulder level or below, the player may be ejected at the discretion of the official. In all of these situations, the official has the discretion of assessing a fla-grant foul (1) or (2).
I think those apply ingame not after during the review stage.
Here's more clarification in the NBA official rules:
So it seems to be discretionary and that they CAN suspend him. But it is not an automatic suspension. They could have just fined him.PUNCHING, FIGHTING AND ELBOW FOULS
Violent acts of any nature on the court will not be tolerated. Players involved in altercations will be ejected, fined and/or suspended.
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. If elbow contact is shoulder level or below, it shall be left to the discretion of the official as to whether the player is ejected. Even if a punch or an elbow goes undetected by the officials during the game, but is detected during a review of a videotape, that player will be penalized.
Refs can't suspend players, those rules seem to be for during games and what refs can or can't do.
A player, coach or trainer must be
ejected for:
(1) A punching foul
(2) A fighting foul
(3) An elbow foul which makes contact
above shoulder level.
Did you even read it?
Even if a punch or an elbow goes undetected by the officials during the game, but is detected during a review of a videotape, that player will be penalized.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
