Reply With Quote
Kay.. You go and find me the rule, from the rule book mind you, that says any player who touches another's head gets an automatic suspension. Go look it up. Find it. And post it.
If you're so sure it exists.
Well yes, he did. Standing up and walking is not an involuntary act. It requires thought process and muscle coordination from someone who knew exactly where the floor was and where to put his foot on it so as to move him forward onto the playing surface.
As several people have pointed out to your dumb ass already (manu, vujacic) players get hit in the head all the time without their intention-minded assailants even being punished in the slightest. Not to even speak of a guy who obviously had no intention of even commiting a foul.
Are you some sort of special idiot, or just the regular kind? Do you know how to read?
Those are not the rules that everybody understands, they are the rules that your dumb ass understands.
The rest of us understand, y'know, the actual rule from, y'know, the actual rule book that several people have already posted.
In case you really can't read, the "and/or" clause gives Stu Jackson powers to forgo or impose suspensions. It is not automatic.The offender will be subject to a fine not exceeding $35,000 and/or suspension by the Commissioner.
Not to mention the aforementioned precedents set in other cases with head contact where there were no suspensions. Even when the contact was intentional, which in this case, wasn't.
What the is your problem? You've been all over Horford from minute 1 of this thing. Nobody else (see the rest of us normal people) seem to get it? you ploto.
Kay.. You go and find me the rule, from the rule book mind you, that says any player who touches another's head gets an automatic suspension. Go look it up. Find it. And post it.
If you're so sure it exists.
Last edited by balli; 12-14-2007 at 10:51 AM.
Weak suspension.
I completely agree with this.
The suspension is basically just a warning to other players: Be careful about initiating hard contact.
I think it was unintentional, but at the same time, he hit TJ REALLY hard. The NBA has to be very pro-active about preventing their players from being carried off on a stretcher.
I can agree with this; that is in fact the reason he got suspended.
However, I'd contend that the message was already and strongly felt league-wide, without the suspension. All anyone needed to get as a warning about the perils of hard contact was a single viewing of the footage.
This argument is far better than that of the morons repeatedly claiming it was a mandatory suspension because of head contact, the flagrant 2, etc.
"Section IV—Fouls
g. A flagrant foul is unnecessary and/or excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent whether the ball is dead or alive."
that's what i've been saying. its not about who were involved or what situation it was in. it had to be done.
almost the same thing happened during the mavs-spurs game when ginobili went for that dunk over diop. howard whacked manu's face and would have went down hard if manu hadn't been able to reach the ring.
Still does not explain why Josh Howard wasn't suspended, ejected, or even called for a foul for what he did to Manu last week when Manu was in the air.
I thought that play deserves a foul, not an ejection, flagrant or ejection despite the fact that the result could be dangerous because it was obvious Howard was going for the ball, which is the same as the Harford/Ford situation.
Both victims got hit in the head, and yet there is such a drastic difference in discipline. I would just say that the league is highy unpredictable and inconsistent with suspensions, ejections and discipline.
This isn't what I asked about. After you said he needed a suspension because;
I asked where it said he had to be suspended for this and you come up with the definiton of a Flagrant? We all know what a flagrant foul is man. I want to know where it says he had to be suspended for it, as you claimed. Try again.The rule is simple: avoid the head
This rule neither addresses contact above shoulders nor an automatic suspension.
you don't consider hitting someone on the head intentionally or otherwise, excessive? the league thinks so. however, i do concur that the flagrant 2 call was more an outcome of the severity of the fall and not the excessive contact itself.
still, it had to be done.
And you still support the suspension? GMAFB!
you wanna know why? because i saw someone who drove to the basket and got hacked in mid-air, flipped over, head hitting the floor. that was last year. last month he finally got use of his legs. all because his defender didn't want to get beat.
it wasn't even an important game. it was only in one of the local leagues we had here.
this is not an indictment on hortford. he's a great kid. this is about when games becoming more important. especially during the playoffs when tempers are high.
if you can let things slide when things aren't as important, what makes you think you won't let it slide when things are important?
i'm done with you.
Okay. Well be done with me. But I hate to break it to you, whatever the terrible thing you saw happen in your local league has no and should have no bearing on the rulings of the National Basketball Association. Again, GMAFB!
They should suspend Horford for more than one game. What he did was reckless and seriously out of control. He wasn't trying to make a play on the ball. It was a dangerous, desperate swat that hurt someone. I'm surprised the whole Toronto bench didn''t get up and kick his ass.
$.02
-The ejection was enough; I don't see the need for the suspension. But the Hawks will be fine; the Pistons are already looking ahead to Boston, and by the time they remember they have a game tonight, it could be too late.
-The refs didn't call the Howard foul for the most obvious of reasons: they honestly thought it was another flop.
No I don't, I play ball and get hit above shoulders all the time unintentionally, I don't consider those to be excessive contact. It hurts, but it's not malicious or excessive.
And why is above the shoulder any more "excessive" that a punch in the nuts, pulling someone's leg in midair, undercutting, or stepping on someone's ankles while they jump? And yet those things happens all the time without consequences.
Finally, the rule you posted said nothing about suspension, it said flagrant foul and ejection.
You are saying that the league is trying to cut out contact? What are defenders supposed to do? Yield wide open layups after layups to avoid potentially hitting a defender? I just don't get how this suspension does ANYTHING to avoid freak accidents.
It does seem like more of a PR suspension than one based on intent or actual conduct. It just looked bad even though Horford wasn't malicious.
Horford also was a victim of Ford being so light. Ford probably weighs in at about 155-160 pounds. If Horford hit 99% of the rest of the league with the same force, they probably keep going up and get a layup and a foul. Ford's slight build and proneness to stingers is why he landed so awkwardly.
the league is soft as ..... we need to bring the 80s back.... when what Horford did wouldn't even be considered a foul
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6SSK9dHfasQ
Not a single suspension I recall. Why has David Stern destroyed parts of this league?
I don't think Horford made an intentional play for his head but I can see why the League suspended him. My problem is the League is not consistent. I have yet to hear a peep about Carmelo's grab on Vujacic. It seems if ESPN makes a deal out of it then the League reacts.
Somewhere Bill Laimbeer is saying you call that a foul.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions