Reply With Quote
And the New York CEO replies, "I'm paying for these seats to see Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, not to see some foreigner who should be cutting my lawn."
I have to say that the thing about the Kobe situation that is most striking to me is how casually everyone is dealing with the admission that Kobe was trying to draw a foul in that situation. Certainly players do try to draw fouls that don't actually occur, but the notion that such an effort is somehow so run-of-the-mill as to be unremarkable strikes me as really odd. The league has allowed this to occur, to an extent, by rewarding players who are clever enough to fool officials into making calls. But the fact so many are up in arms that a guy is now made to pay a penalty resulting from the consequences of his efforts to fool the game officials is just bizzare, as is the argument that Kobe should somehow be treated differently in the context of the game because he's Kobe Bryant.
And the New York CEO replies, "I'm paying for these seats to see Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, not to see some foreigner who should be cutting my lawn."
So he should be able to complain if Kobe acts in a way that a "lesser" player might act, is T'd up twice in the first quarter and ejected 5 minutes in? Or should officials allow Kobe to do whatever he wishes without fear of ejection, because the New York CEO replies "I'm paying for these seats to see Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, not to see some foreigner who should be cutting my lawn."
I understand your point, I just don't necessarily understand the argument. If Kobe Bryant is ill or injured, or at home because someone in his family is ill or injured, or is not playing because he mouthed off to his coach or because he socked another player in the nose, the result is the same. That's a chance that every ticket buyer takes -- if you pay to see a particular player, any number of cir stances might deprive you of your wish. Certainly, in this case, the league had control over whether Kobe played or not, but saying that it should kowtow to the wishes of New York CEO's who want to see Kobe play strikes me as an untenable choice -- if Kobe's behavior was sufficient to warrant suspension, then when do you suspend him? Is it fair to say that New York CEO's paid to see Kobe and should get that chance, while the family in Milwaukee who could only afford to go to one game and chose to try to see Kobe should be shafted?
And if this wasn't enough to warrant a suspension, then where do you draw that line? Do you let Kobe Bryant get away with more on the suspendability scale simply because he's Kobe Bryant? If it's Vladimir Radmanovic who strikes Ginobili in that way, does he warrant a suspension for that act because he's not Kobe Bryant?
I seriously doubt Kobe was trying to draw a foul by flinging his arm back. I've watched the replay several times. If you'll notice, the ball is blocked straight up into the air. Kobe actually -catches- the blocked shot and shoots again. Flinging his arm back looks like a clear-cut way to box out Manu so he can get another shot off.So you think Kobe got mad that his shot was blocked and punched Manu in the face?
It's clear as day to me that Kobe was trying to draw the foul.
I doubt he intentionally hit Manu in the head (or he's got reaaaaaaaally good aim for someone he can't see), but I think he knew time was almost up and he could probably get away with a rough seal of the defender. So he tried to clear Manu with his elbow and get back to the ball, which he succeeded in both. Wrecklessly.
If Kobe was really headhunting, I doubt his focus would have been on catching the ball before it landed and shooting again. Most likely he would have just slammed Manu down and then walked off the court. His focus wasn't on delivering the blow, though. It was on getting another shot off.
I would like to see what's your post next time Nowis' face hit by Artest or so.
What the league should do is enforce its own rules, regardless of whom they're enforcing them against. Since they have decided to crack down on wild flailing meant to draw a foul, which instead ends up whacking somebody upside the head, it should be enforced the same whether it is Kobe Bryant or Beno Udrih.
But if you want to know why New York sports columnists are publishing articles that say there should be special treatment for Kobe Bryant because he is Kobe Bryant, it is because last night the New York high rollers were pissed. They wanted to see Kobe Bryant. In their eyes, the world does not revolve around disciplinary consistency in the NBA, or around working families in Milwaukee; it revolves around them, and when they don't get what they want, they react in a fashion not unlike a two-year-old.
And because the NBA offices are in New York, David Stern and Stu Jackson catch heat for it, and because these people have a lot of money and power, the NBA genuflects.
So while probably it makes no difference what input Popovich or anybody else makes to the NBA office, the Spurs make a convenient scapegoat.
Oh, like I say, I KNOW all of that. I guess my posts are meant to wonder aloud and, perhaps, spark some discussion about the whys of that.
I'm well aware that not all fans are equal and players are treated differently based on the fans' expectations -- for instance, Eddie F. Rush's direct question to a scorekeeper one night about how many fouls Shaq had.
It's none of the mav's fans bussiness!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
