In case you wondered what response the "go Kings, do some headhunting" writer had to say about the Artest suspension:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports...15065116c.html
By Ailene Voisin -- Bee Sports Columnist
SAN ANTONIO - Generally speaking, Ron Artest makes a really lousy defendant. His NBA rap sheet runs the length of a CD. He has been fined, suspended and scolded too many times to mention. He has been banned from a building (Conseco Fieldhouse) and, in so many stern words, warned by the commissioner that his next bad deed could be his final act.
But a one-game suspension?
Cruel and unusual.
Though Artest certainly deserves to be punished for aiming that high forearm at Manu Ginobili's jaw - headhunting is prohibited even in big games - benching the Kings' best player for Game 2 is excessive both on its face (Manu said he felt little pain) and in a much larger context (see Artest bio). Old history shouldn't weigh more heavily than the more recent past.
Prior bad acts shouldn't result in a life sentence, and yet, based on Monday's ruling, Artest's baggage seems to have followed him all the way to Sacramento. [whoa - a one game suspension now = a life sentence?]
"There was no flagrant foul," league vice president Stu Jackson explained from his office in Manhattan. "This is a 'contact' rule. The action we're taking is because of the fact Ron made contact with Manu Ginobili's head. While the contact was not severe, it was a potentially dangerous play. And the fact he is a recidivist was taken into account."
Recidivist?
Jackson threw me on that one.
Artest threw an elbow. Artest made a mistake. Give him a break. [Hey, he's been on good behavior for half a season, so he's earned a mulligan, right?]
There was no lingering harm - so says Ginobili - and until Jackson reviewed the game tape, there wasn't even a foul. [please look up "intent," dearie. He was flying around the entire third quarter trying to put the big hurt on someone, a fact you oh-so-casually ignore.]
As a matter of fact, the league should be delivering roses to his doorstep instead of slapping him with subpoenas.
Artest, 26, has been a basketball boon to the region, a professional athlete who signs autographs, grants interviews and avoids confrontations even when baited by the league's premier provocateurs. The sellout streak at Arco Arena survives because of Artest. The Kings made the playoffs because of Artest. This series has become intriguing again ... because of Artest.
"For us it is a good thing (the suspension), because he is a great player," said the amiable Ginobili, who bloodied Artest's mouth with his own inadvertent elbow earlier in the game. "I didn't see exactly how it was. He raised his elbow and hit me in the face. (But) no, it didn't hurt me."
The more appropriate punishment would have been to fine Artest a few million, chastise him for a few more minutes and then send him back onto the floor. Among other factors to consider, this is the postseason, when the style of play becomes more physical and more intense because there is so much more at stake. The league rules can be rewritten and strengthened annually, which they invariably are, but players will continue to direct forearms and place hands on all the inappropriate places.
Yet Jackson speaks about Artest as if the small forward were a criminal, a repeat offender from Folsom, instead of a player who has modified his behavior and maintained his composure since being traded to the Kings three months ago. One technical. Two or three animated chats with referees. End of issues until Game 1. [Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... ]
Thus, the su ion lingers. What if Bruce Bowen had taken that shot Saturday night? If Mike Bibby had been the King swinging his arm? Would they have received the same sentence? Maybe yes. Maybe no.
"Mike Bibby would have been suspended," Jackson insisted, only to reiterate his previous comments. The penalty fits the crime, he says, because the culprit is Ron Artest. In so many unspoken words, league officials are enforcing a system of preventative measures. Send him to his room now so you don't have to spank him later. And while there is some logic in this, and the easy response is simply to remind everyone that, hey, This is Ron Artest!, this isn't justice.
Though hardly a victim - and he would be wise to avoid that potential black hole - Artest on Monday still sounded like someone who had just escaped a dentist's chair. His words were few, and mostly jumbled.
"Obviously everybody knows I'm upset about it," he said in brief remarks at the AT&T Center. "I talked to Stu, which was encouraging. He told me I was suspended due to a whole lot of things that happened in my career ... which is not fair."
No, this time he makes a great argument. [If you think that's a "great argument," then I have another one for you. He who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.]
Is this the same Howard Stern looking chick who was calling for the Kings to start throwing the Spurs around?
I'm in the camp that thinks the suspension was a bit much, but trying to actually defend Artest just makes you look stupid. He behaved himself for three whole months!!! He's cured!!! Bull . If you want to say that the league came down too hard on him fine, but don't try to make that point by playing him up like a martyr.
This was a question that I had and it's been answered. I couldn't find anywhere yesterday that the league had upgraded the foul to a flagrant, much less to a flagrant 2. It's the contact to the head that warranted the suspension, not the classification of the foul -- the two things are separate.
For instance, Juwan Howard was given a flagrant 2 and ejected for his foul on Derek Anderson in 2001, but he wasn't suspended for the next game. Kevin Willis was given a flagrant 2 and ejected for a foul on Scott Williams in the first game of the Phoenix series in 2003, and he was suspended for the next game. Willis' foul involved a head shot; Howard's did not. I'm sure that there are other examples of head blows that haven't resulted in flagrant fouls but have been met with suspensions.
I still think the punishment is excessive and would agree that Artest is being judged more for what he did in the past than what he did on Saturday, but I think the implementation of a suspension for a blow to the head is fairly consistent.
Yep, that's her:
SON OF A !
I'm so tired of hearing people say there wasn't a foul, THERE WAS A ING FOUL!
Ron's a little maggot and got what he deserved!!
Spurs Forum, Drop and give me 25!!
"whole lot of things that happened in my career ... which is not fair"
Ron baby, learn from your egregious, repeated mistakes, or continue to over your self and your team.
nobody else give a .
I wonder what she'd be writing if the Spurs were delivering intentional elbows to the Kings players heads? Artest had tried to deliver one to Duncan, too, only it didn't land. I'm not sure why this chick is applauding pussie basketball. I'm all for playing rough, but not with the intent to hurt.
Who said there wasn't a foul? THERE WAS NO FLAGRANT FOUL. There is a difference. He was called for a foul in the game. That is not why he was suspended.
No she says foul, not flagrant foul...
"NO FLAGRANT FOUL"
NBA rules state any shots above the shoulders are FF and ejection.
The hardness or softness of the shot doesn't matter, it's the location that defines the flagrancy and ejection.
Well, she's blind and stupid, too. Even Jackson says there was a foul but it was not "flagrant".
The column reads as if she's saying that there was no foul on the play, and that's clearly wrong. Ronnie did get called for a foul (I think Mike Callahan called it and properly gave the Spurs the ball on the side); Pop was bent that it wasn't called a flagrant. Pop had a fairly animated conversation with Danny Crawford on the ensuing possession. He then seemed to be yelling at Monty McCutchen on the possession after that one, but Artest was between Pop and McCutchen, so it could be that Pop was actually shouting at Artest. In any event, Voisin is incorrect if she says no foul.
And boutons is right that technically, the league should have upgraded the foul to a flagrant by strict letter of the rules, but Stu Jackson's comments seem to indicate that there was no upgrade -- perhaps the suspension was deemed enough.
I agree with you that the punishment was a bit harsh and no suspension was necessary. Throw him out of the rest of the game if that makes someone happy, no problem. But 1 game, please, that is a little overboard. Especially when Manu himself said he felt no pain.
I also agree with your take on the writer Ailiene Poison. Please don't think this is the voice of most Sacramento fans. I for one, can't stand the .
Anyone else surprised at the garbage that passes for a column these days?
Where are the Roykos of Yesteryear...
Hey Do you remember Sheed hitting Z in his head? He didn't get a suspension.
What about Kobes 2 games suspension?
Thanks for the reminder; I had actually forgotten about Sheed's deal. I think that actually makes it harder to understand the suspension here.
Just throw him out of the league and get this over with. I'm tired of this nonsense. Every other week there's a story about Ron Artest and how the NBA has a vendetta against him. I'm tired of hearing the name.
What has he done lately to get thrown out of the league??? Sounds like you need to get over this. He's already been suspended, why are you still whining?
I'm actually on your side in this thing, and you're going to argue with me? I'm tired of his name. I'm tired of him being talked about as if he's a badass. He's not. He's not the most hated player in the NBA or a top-10 talent. He's talked about like he's a Hall-of-Famer with all these problems. He's not. So if the NBA is going to use his 'old' behavior as a judgement for him - throw him out of the league, we'll go threw another round of these stories, and it will be done with.
How can I read your first comment and come to the conclusion that you are "on my side"????
I agree that his name is in the press too much, and this is the first incident he's had since becoming a King. One point I disagree with though: He is a badass. And yes, he is a top ten talent. Ask any GM around the league, his name will come up.
Again, you say you are "on my side", I say you are whining.
"on your side," as in that he shouldn't have been suspended.
Dennis Rodman was a badass. Dennis Rodman was a 2-time Defensive Player of the Year, a 2-Time NBA Champion, played in 3 NBA Finals and 5 Conference Finals before he started pulling this .
Ron Artest is a child, he is not a badass.
That's how it works in real life.. It's called a "rap sheet".. only this dude can't rap.
Look at his rap website he can't even spell.
Yes, I understand that now. I was referring to your first post that had no indication of that.
You have your opinion, and I, along with most of the league, have ours. We will agree to disagree.
Oy, cry me a river. STFU already, Aileen.
Artest should be treated like a criminal. A criminal who is on parole right now. You make even one SMALL move when you're still on parole, it's back to jail for you. Anyone who is arrested for assault in the "real world" knows that. It's Artest's (and much of the rest of the NBA's) sense of en lement that leads them to believe they should be treated differently. At what other workplace could you play an integral role in a BRAWL and still be allowed to return to work a year later? Artest is lucky he hasn't been banned from the league.
Last edited by Supergirl; 04-25-2006 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Grammar correction
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
