Reply With Quote
By what rule?
Curious to know your opinion of why the league decided not to punish Wade for violating Rule 12A sec V L (3) ?
" 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"
By what rule?
You just said no foul was called.
Answered your own question.
Do you have rules in Poland?
He was assessed the flagrant foul retroactively, but did not have to pay the price like Tony Allen.
Are you saying Wade doesn't have to pay the fine that comes with flagrant fouls?
JR Smith got suspended for Elbowing Jason Terry to the head, but Wade does not. In your opinion, what's the difference?
You mean the flagrant two called during the game?
Offhand, I'd say the difference is it was a flagrant two called during the game.
And thanks to everyone for avoiding the actual flagrant rule like the plague.
Yeah, it's ambiguous, you just want to be ambiguous in the Spurs' favor. Tough . spurfan would have gone nuts had the same foul happened to Manu and a flagrant was not called.
Rightly so.
So if you elbow someone to the head and the ref don't see it then that's ok?
See it when?
OK with whom?
Ever find the flagrant rule?
If no one sees a foul, how can it be called?
I think some of the posters are correct in stating that initially it wasn't called a flagrant, but Allen's acting job tipped the scale in favor of Memphis.And thanks to everyone for avoiding the actual flagrant rule like the plague.
Yeah, it's ambiguous, you just want to be ambiguous in the Spurs' favor. Tough . spurfan would have gone nuts had the same foul happened to Manu and a flagrant was not called.
Rightly so.
So the league can't retroactively asses fouls since they weren't seen during the game?
Conjecture.
Who said that?
No one.
I guess I should have played the same game when you said "If no one sees a foul, how can it be called? " Who said that? No one.
Anyways, my initial reaction to the Manu foul was just good hard foul, but maybe it wasn't yours, so hence the difference of opinion.
At least you admitted to some ambiguity.the league's inconsistent enforcement of penalties like elbows to the head, which by the way the rule book never states have to be called during a game, makes this a never ending argument.
We were indeed talking about retroactive fouls.
OK.Anyways, my initial reaction to the Manu foul was just good hard foul, but maybe it wasn't yours, so hence the difference of opinion.
Actually no player can ever be ejected from a game retroactively. That seems to be the main sticking point with the Wade situation.At least you admitted to some ambiguity.the league's inconsistent enforcement of penalties like elbows to the head, which by the way the rule book never states have to be called during a game, makes this a never ending argument.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-27-2013 at 03:57 AM.
Most of the people ing about this are way, way off base. The refs didn't single out Manu or the Spurs for special punishment. And the league isn't going to suspend a player in the playoffs, unless he does something more substantial than what Wade did on that play. In general, the plays you're citing just aren't that conclusive. If you can't say that a call is so obvious that you would feel the same way if the teams were reversed, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
You're never going to prove anything, because flagrant fouls are discretionary - period. It's always going to be one opinion vs. another. But if you're really trying to make a case that the league is biased on these kinds of issues, there are better examples. Here's a link to a story where the league upgraded a foul after the fact. A whole week after the fact, seemingly because Lebron made a public complaint about hard fouls by Chicago. ChumpDumper and I have disagreed about bias inside the NBA. I think this article shows the league doing something for LeBron that they wouldn't do for, say, Tiago Splitter. Read the whole article, and look at all the videos. The league's final decision makes no sense. And there is no explanation I can see for taking a week to do it, other than responding directly to LeBron's complaint. It's hard to absolutely prove bias. But if there's a smell test, this one wouldn't pass.
http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/the-nb...to-a-flagrant/
You did not answered to the question
The rule of foolish bets.
It's "You did not answer the question."
Provide me a link
No, but a player CAN be suspended from the next game, due to a retroactive call. I think the sticking point is whether Wade's forearm to the head was excessive, which would have given the league reason to call it a flagrant 2, even retroactively.
You're already on the page.
But were talking about reasons why he wasn't suspended.
There it is.
Provide a link to the rules not to a thread of some board
You can't do that?
Since you don't have contact with any NBA referees, I'm the only one who can verify or disprove your claim.
I disproved it.
Told you it was a foolish bet.
Where are the rules you can approve or disapprove?
No link, no rules. You lost. Loser:
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
