Quote:
Originally posted by rotationslim
That is not what I said, would it not be appropriate to be very quick to eject someone who fouls HARD and needlessly when a game is out of reach, as opposed to someone who fouls just as hard, but during a close, intense battle right up 'till the final buzzer.
|
I guess this is where judgment comes in and maybe we do not have the same judgment. I did not think the foul was any different than a normal play. I think if Artest was not involved, you would never suggest the type of foul was hard enough to eject someone. Just my take on your post. I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by rotationslim
Obviously a foul is a foul, and you would call it in both instances, but wouldn't you be more willing to toss a player when the game is out of reach, and the foul is completely useless, and just an expression of frustration?
|
No I would not. If the foul warrants and ejection, it would warrant an ejection regardless of what time the game it was at. Ben Wallace was not knocked down or really knocked off balance. He was fouled by Artest that has a right to contest a shot. He was called for the foul and Wallace overacted. The only person I would eject would be Wallace if that happen in my game. Artest did everything to walk away and did not confront Wallace at all. He backed away and then quickly laid down on the scorer's table. I think it would be a stretch to eject someone that in all his body language was doing nothing to be confrontational. Players are still allowed to play the game when the game is out of hand or not in question.
Peace