Mavericks v Lakers

[APG]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Three times in two yards...hard to argue he's NOT a repeat offender. I'm not saying the league will treat him as such but I think you get my point.

Mixing up sports there...does that equal an automatic first down?

I can't think of the third time Bynum's been in a situation like this...I only remember reading about the flagrant towards the end of the regular season and this situation. If this is his third time, I could see the suspension being bumped up to the 7-8 game range.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Greeny managed to both do that and demonstrate his ignorance when it comes to officiating this morning.
He commended the officials, but stated that if that same play happened in game one it should have been a Flagrant 1.

He does this every day he starts talking about sports. It is not just when he starts talking about officiating for sure.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He does this every day he starts talking about sports. It is not just when he starts talking about officiating for sure.

Peace

True enough, but I typically find his perspective to be entertaining; until he starts pontificating on officiating. Then I flip over to music instead.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Those two fouls were two of the most "bush league" flagrant whacks I've ever seen (including the Ron Artest inexcusable whack of a few games before). ...

Odom's was unnecessary and deserving of 1-game suspension. Bynum was flagrantly flagrant and deserving of a major suspension.

I actually think Artest's ended up a lot worse then he intended. Looked like he was attempting to foul Berrea (sp??) and the collision with his teammate caused the clothesline. Artest's foul was easily the least flagrant and least intentional of the 3.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Odom's was unnecessary and deserving of 1-game suspension. Bynum was flagrantly flagrant and deserving of a major suspension.

I actually think Artest's ended up a lot worse then he intended. Looked like he was attempting to foul Berrea (sp??) and the collision with his teammate caused the clothesline. Artest's foul was easily the least flagrant and least intentional of the 3.

You know, right after the game there were a lot of apologists saying, "He was just trying to foul, and inadvertently clotheslined him." Seems to me that just like an accidental shooting while committing another crime is no longer an accident ... an accidental flagrant while trying to foul is no longer an accident. It irks me that "he was trying to foul" somehow gets him off the hook or makes it less serious.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You know, right after the game there were a lot of apologists saying, "He was just trying to foul, and inadvertently clotheslined him." Seems to me that just like an accidental shooting while committing another crime is no longer an accident ... an accidental flagrant while trying to foul is no longer an accident. It irks me that "he was trying to foul" somehow gets him off the hook or makes it less serious.

Makes a difference when penalizing and judging intent. He was, IMO, not trying to do anything flagrant. He was just trying to grab Berrea to foul him.

What was the "crime" you think Artest was trying to commit?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Mixing up sports there...does that equal an automatic first down?

Wow....I have NO idea where that came from.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Makes a difference when penalizing and judging intent. He was, IMO, not trying to do anything flagrant. He was just trying to grab Berrea to foul him.

What was the "crime" you think Artest was trying to commit?

What difference does it make what he was "trying" to do...fact is he clothes lined the guy. There is no judging of intent needed on that play, on Odom's play, or on Bynum's.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

What difference does it make what he was "trying" to do...fact is he clothes lined the guy. There is no judging of intent needed on that play, on Odom's play, or on Bynum's.

And who said I didn't say it didn't deserve to be a Flagrant Foul? I said the final act ended up worse than his initial intentions, which was just to commit a foul. I made my statement in regards to Grune lumping it into the same "bush league" category as what Odom and Bynum did. To me what Artest did is in no way comparable to what Bynum did.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

What difference does it make what he was "trying" to do...fact is he clothes lined the guy. There is no judging of intent needed on that play, on Odom's play, or on Bynum's.

There's certainly a difference between Artest's play and Bynum's play...I do think you have to judge intent when deciding on the length of suspension...less so when deciding whether to keep a player in a game or not.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And who said I didn't say it didn't deserve to be a Flagrant Foul? I said the final act ended up worse than his initial intentions, which was just to commit a foul. I made my statement in regards to Grune lumping it into the same "bush league" category as what Odom and Bynum did. To me what Artest did is in no way comparable to what Bynum did.

Gotcha...but I will disagree as to the opinion that the plays (Artest and Bynum)are not comparable. Imho, they are comparable in that both of them were non-basketball plays that have no business taking place in the game. Was one more dangerous than the other - yes. But both could have caused significant injury. Both were "bush league".

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Makes a difference when penalizing and judging intent. He was, IMO, not trying to do anything flagrant. He was just trying to grab Berrea to foul him.

What was the "crime" you think Artest was trying to commit?

Is it not correct that fouling is against the rules? In that analogy, that is the "crime". Doing something flagrant completely on accident is one thing. Doing something flagrant while trying on purpose to do something illegal should not be LESS - and if you listened to the commentators - it seemed that was the excuse.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Is it not correct that fouling is against the rules? In that analogy, that is the "crime". Doing something flagrant completely on accident is one thing. Doing something flagrant while trying on purpose to do something illegal should not be LESS - and if you listened to the commentators - it seemed that was the excuse.

It may be against the rules, but it's an accepted part of the game. Teams do it all the time with the full intent of accepting the consequences (FTs and increased foul count).

Purposeful fouls happen all the time at the end of games and in the lane.

As has been stated, the foul itself is usually enough to make a game-time call; but intent could certainly come into play when deciding how long to suspend the offending player.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Wow....I have NO idea where that came from.

Carefully re-read your OWN post that he was replying to.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Carefully re-read your OWN post that he was replying to.

I think that's what he was talking about.