Carmelo Anthony: THUG

[JamStone]

Boy your a re ...you first defend KG for his stupid on court antics..then you defend Carmelo who is a cheap thug and their many examples of that..and now your calling out Duncan?

learn sarcasm

[JamStone]

Ok, I'm not gonna twist your words at all here to illustrate the problem with your position on this play. Look at what you just wrote. 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

And, yet officials sidestep the rules all the time. When two players are both jumping up for a rebound and one gets elbowed in the head, the person who elbows is often not ejected because the above the shoulders contact is considered incidental. There are plenty of times during a basketball game a player drives to the basket, gets hit with contact but doesn't get to the free throw line because an official "sidesteps" the rule. You see traveling, palming the ball, goaltending all the time because officials "sidestep" the rules. There is a human element to officiating and you are naive to think every play is black or white and indisputably objective to the rulebook. Officials sometimes have to interpret whether there is a flop when making a call. If every foul above the shoulders automatically meant an ejection, there would be several each game. Players get hit in the head all the time.

[PoleSmoking]

And, yet officials sidestep the rules all the time. When two players are both jumping up for a rebound and one gets elbowed in the head, the person who elbows is often not ejected because the above the shoulders contact is considered incidental. There are plenty of times during a basketball game a player drives to the basket, gets hit with contact but doesn't get to the free throw line because an official "sidesteps" the rule. You see traveling, palming the ball, goaltending all the time because officials "sidestep" the rules. There is a human element to officiating and you are naive to think every play is black or white and indisputably objective to the rulebook. Officials sometimes have to interpret whether there is a flop when making a call. If every foul above the shoulders automatically meant an ejection, there would be several each game. Players get hit in the head all the time.

See, here you're playing a s game with your examples. What you have just described are instances of non-calls that you think are open to interpretation; but we're talking about an actual call that was made.

You're right that the refs miss a lot, or perhaps even choose not to make a call; but it doesn't actually help your argument, unless you're gonna argue that Carmello should not have been called for any foul at all. I don't think that's what you're saying, so the point is moot.

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.

[JamStone]

Ok a guy gets poked in the eye. A foul is called. The eye is above the shoulder. Automatic ejection?

[JamStone]

And, my first example wasn't one of a non-call. Loose ball call, two players go for a rebound, one elbows the other the head incidentally and gets a foul called on them. You almost never see that player get ejected even though your argument is that he should.

[PoleSmoking]

And, my first example wasn't one of a non-call. Loose ball call, two players go for a rebound, one elbows the other the head incidentally and gets a foul called on them. You almost never see that player get ejected even though your argument is that he should.

No no no. See, you're doing it again. There are different sets of rules for loose ball situations, and in such situations the official actually has the discretion to avoid calling a foul if the contact is deemed incidental. There are different rules for contact with an offensive ball-handler that don't apply. C'mon man, you know there are different rules depending on where contact occurs on the court, and whether the offensive player is facing the hoop or not.

In this situation, Carmello "impeded the progress" of Vujacic while the Lakers had the ball. The official was standing right there, and saw what the rule book calls "excessive or flagrant" contact above the shoulders on an offensive player. It's not the same as a loose ball rebound situation. By the way, I've seen plenty of those loose ball elbows actually called, too. So it's not like they just let it go all the time.

What gets me about this whole debate is that you're not only wrong about the rules, your wrong about the plain evidence from the video. I just checked it out again for myself on YouTube, and Carmello is clearly grabbing him on purpose to keep him from cutting baseline, and that arm movement you wanted to cite as evidence of Carmello's innocence is about the most damning thing about the whole play. He's not pulling away, he's clearly following through on his motion and PUSHING Vujacic away. Almost looks malicious, and that's why the refs deemed it excessive. Just give up on this one. Sometimes, you've just got to admit you're wrong and move on.

[JamStone]

Do you know the exact language of the rulebook? Do you know these different set of rules for each of these different sets of plays you're talking about. First your argument was that my examples were noncalls. Now, it's different rules for different plays or sets of contact. Who's bull ting whom?

Wrong about the plain evidence of the video? I never said Carmello didn't grab him. I never said he didn't put his hands near or around his neck or throat area. I didn't say Carmello was innocent of a foul. I never said Carmello wasn't trying to impede Sasha's movement. That's exactly what Carmello was trying to do. Stop changing my argument. I said Sasha flopped.

And, now it "almost looks malicious?" That's my point. You don't know Carmelo's intent. And, in my opinion, he wasn't trying to do anything but slow down Sasha. He didn't choke him and didn't shove him to the ground. And, before it was an automatic ejection by the rulebook. And, now you say "the refs deemed it excessive." Which one was it. If it was an automatic ejection by the rulebook, why did the refs have to deem it excessive? Your argument is breaking down.

Sometimes you have to realize when your argument lost.

And, by the way, since you were so boner-happy to tell me how basketball isn't a contact sport, it's "game, set, match." Not, game, POINT, and match. If you have game, you already have point.

[JamStone]

Again, first it was a "foul above the shoulders" and an "automatic ejection." I give examples of a "foul above the shoulders" that would not be an "automatic ejection" and you say there are different rules for different sets of cir stances and that the refs "deemed it excessive." An automatic ejection would not have to be "deemed excessive." You see how you changed your argument? See how officials have to interpret the play?

[monosylab1k]

has anybody ever been more butthurt about being wrong and insist on throwing their own stupid viewpoint more than JamStone in this thread?

Seriously, it's you versus everbody with a in clue. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

I really wish I had some slightly amusing gif of a guy with a Rollie Fingers Mustache banging angrily on his computer. That would be sweet.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

[SpurForLife]

Sheesh, I think I just wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this thread!!!

[PoleSmoking]

Do you know the exact language of the rulebook? Do you know these different set of rules for each of these different sets of plays you're talking about. First your argument was that my examples were noncalls. Now, it's different rules for different plays or sets of contact. Who's bull ting whom?

Wrong about the plain evidence of the video? I never said Carmello didn't grab him. I never said he didn't put his hands near or around his neck or throat area. I didn't say Carmello was innocent of a foul. I never said Carmello wasn't trying to impede Sasha's movement. That's exactly what Carmello was trying to do. Stop changing my argument. I said Sasha flopped.

And, now it "almost looks malicious?" That's my point. You don't know Carmelo's intent. And, in my opinion, he wasn't trying to do anything but slow down Sasha. He didn't choke him and didn't shove him to the ground. And, before it was an automatic ejection by the rulebook. And, now you say "the refs deemed it excessive." Which one was it. If it was an automatic ejection by the rulebook, why did the refs have to deem it excessive? Your argument is breaking down.

Sometimes you have to realize when your argument lost.

And, by the way, since you were so boner-happy to tell me how basketball isn't a contact sport, it's "game, set, match." Not, game, POINT, and match. If you have game, you already have point.

Actually I do know the exact wording of the NBA rule book. I was referring back to it before my last response. I didn't change up my argument at all, and I'm not just trying to bull you. I'm done with this discussion. I made my point, you rambled some more, and I'm tired of trying to clarify issues for you that you can research for yourself. The Rule Book is available online at the NBA.com site, read it at your leisure. But I'm done with you now.

[JamStone]

has anybody ever been more butthurt about being wrong and insist on throwing their own stupid viewpoint more than JamStone in this thread?

Seriously, it's you versus everbody with a in clue. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

I really wish I had some slightly amusing gif of a guy with a Rollie Fingers Mustache banging angrily on his computer. That would be sweet.

LMAO!

Good thing Carmello got that 5 game suspension for choking a player ... oh wait, there was no suspension because the NBA saw it was a flop. You can't even argue your point anymore because you know it's wrong so you resort to personal attacks. Nice distraction technique.

[JamStone]

Actually I do know the exact wording of the NBA rule book. I was referring back to it before my last response. I didn't change up my argument at all, and I'm not just trying to bull you. I'm done with this discussion. I made my point, you rambled some more, and I'm tired of trying to clarify issues for you that you can research for yourself. The Rule Book is available online at the NBA.com site, read it at your leisure. But I'm done with you now.

Actually you did change your argument. First you said it was an above the shoulders foul, no discretion or interpretation, automatic ejection. Then when I gave you examples of an above the shoulder fouls that would not be automatic ejections, you said well there are different sets of rules for such and such plays and then the refs deemed the Carmelo foul excessive. Deeming a foul excessive requires the officials to use interpretation and discretion. You did change your argument. It's one or the other. And, your argument failed.

[monosylab1k]

You can't even argue your point anymore

That's because I said my piece. Remember how you obsessively wanted me to quit discussing the issue because you had no defense for your dead wrong view? People can go read the first 7 pages of this thread and see me dismantle your "Vujacic is capable of superhuman abilities" argument with relative ease. I'd rather throw personal insults at this point instead of discussing the semantics of non-contact sports.

And I fully expected Carmelo to receive no suspension. After all, his name isn't Kobe Bryant.

[monosylab1k]

you resort to personal attacks. Nice distraction technique.

indeed.

Are you this stupid or do you like to argue this much?

Go eye a midget or an NFL quarterback. You'll make better use of your time.

Watch the video in real time, you imbecile. Not in the slow mo pussy you keep rewinding.

I don't know enough about you to know if you ever played basketball, organized or pick-up, but you must be a ing pussy if you do play.

LMAO! You need a new job. Giving midgets blow jobs affords you way too much time to argue on spurstalk.

Sure, tell Weeman to use a rubber next time so you don't have to get your stomach pumped ... again.

Crazy.

You're a bigger re than I thought if you really don't think there was a flop involved. And, I already thought you were a abnormally gigantic re to begin with.

Go yourself, then Weeman, then Tom Brady.

It will be ok ...

I assume you're also not a cartoon character, but apparently you pick and choose what to take serious in order for you to be whatever degree of jackass you want to be at the given moment.

And, by the way, since you were so boner-happy to tell me how basketball isn't a contact sport

[PoleSmoking]

Lmfao!

[JamStone]

indeed.

Good stuff. I retort to your no doubt.

Cute you took all that time to do all that for a discussion you were done with days ago. Your butt hurt much?

It's great you've been done and said your piece for days now and yet you keep responding.

[JamStone]

That's because I said my piece. Remember how you obsessively wanted me to quit discussing the issue because you had no defense for your dead wrong view?

Remember how you keep making up like that comment right there? You were the one who said multiple times you're done with this issue and yet your vagina won't let you stop responding.

People can go read the first 7 pages of this thread and see me dismantle your "Vujacic is capable of superhuman abilities" argument with relative ease. I'd rather throw personal insults at this point instead of discussing the semantics of non-contact sports.

People are more than welcome to read through these 7 pages, but who would want to? It's ing message board, and you treat it like a 100 hour per week job. You are incapable of dismantling a lego set much less an argument. There isn't one solid point you've made that proves Sasha did not flop.

And I fully expected Carmelo to receive no suspension. After all, his name isn't Kobe Bryant.

Yet you'll swear on a gay midget that he choke slammed Sasha. Riiiight, because choke slamming a player definitely isn't suspension worthy.

[monosylab1k]

Cute you took all that time to do all that for a discussion you were done with days ago. Your butt hurt much?

I'm not the one who searched the threads for a damning quote from you and then proudly pasted it into my sig like a true internet master. As opposed to the minute or so it took me to cut and paste a few quotes from one thread on the front page of the Basketball Forum.

[monosylab1k]

You were the one who said multiple times you're done with this issue and yet your vagina won't let you stop responding.

It's been a while since I've said anything about the Carmelo/Vujacic imbroglio. i've focused on what a butthurt little you are instead. along with saving darfur. do you equate posting in this thread with posting a view on carmelo/vujacic. what part of "learn to ing read" don't you get? i guess that question answers itself.

[monosylab1k]

ribeye steak is great.

(JamStone's response - "i thought you said your piece about this issue!")

[JamStone]

Carmelo Anthony was being a punk and deserved his ejection & whatever suspension may be coming.

Don't expect a suspension now that it's several days later and one hasn't been given?

At one point you felt a suspension could have been coming. Now, you realize it was a flop and you'll use old humor to say no suspension will be given because he isn't Kobe. Good one.

[JamStone]

ribeye steak is great.

(JamStone's response - "i thought you said your piece about this issue!")

Melo isn't Kobe.

[monosylab1k]

Don't expect a suspension now that it's several days later and one hasn't been given?

At one point you felt a suspension could have been coming. Now, you realize it was a flop and you'll use old humor to say no suspension will be given because he isn't Kobe. Good one.

save darfur