Mavericks v Lakers
 

Really... no thread on this already? Shocked.

I'm sure you guys have all seen the way the Lakers ended Phil Jackson's career on a rather ignominous note. I think the officials handled it well as possible.

What do you think the suspensions will be, or should be? I bet it WILL be 1 game suspension at the beginning of next year on Bynum, maybe nothing on the other play.

I think Bynum's hit SHOULD warrant much more. I think the fact that this was done at the very end of a game already out of hand should be part of the equation. This was nothing less than an attempt to injure, and should be handled as strongly as a fight, if not more. I think 4-5 games more appropriate, and one thing I wish NBA would do is cause suspended players in situations like this sit out the next game AGAINST THAT TEAM.

Rick Bucher from ESPN was on Mike and Mike this morning, and he thinks Bynum could end up with 10 games off; 5 for the "foul" and 5 more for ripping his shirt off at half court.

It's not Bynum's first rodeo, so that should play into it. I haven't seen the play (too much going on this weekend, or I would have loved to watch the close-out game) yet.

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). I hope they throw the book at both of them! The league must demonstrate that if you're losing badly and you're frustrated, you can't just go out and hammer someone - playoffs or regular season. I'd like to see 10 games and a $100K fine! There could have been a really bad injury, especially the one by Bynum.

The announcers went out of their way to commend the officials and the way they managed and had control of the game.

A sad way to end Phil Jackson's career. Really embarrassing for the league.

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. :rolleyes:

10 game suspension plus $100K? Thats a lot of money...

Although I didnt want Kobe to tie MJ, Phil didnt deserve to go out like that.

It ought to be a lot of money!

I don't give a crap how "frustrated" he was. After the game, he said something like "those guys were just going down the lane all day on us and I got tired of it." Bynum was just a thug on his hit of a defenseless, airborne shooter who subsequently crashed to the floor and could have been severly injured.

The league saves 10+ game suspension for the really egregious stuff on the court...think when Carmelo sucker punched a Knicks player awhile back. I believe he got 14 games for that. And $100,000 again is saved for what the league views as really bad stuff...especially for on the court actions.

If I had to venture, Bynum will get anymore from a 2-5 game suspension...probably closer to five because he missed two games due to a flagrant foul penalty two on a similar play...and a $50,000 fine. No way that's a 10 game suspension.

I could see Odom's foul being called a flagrant one under different circumstances...I thought the flagrant two was the correct call for the situation...

Bynum's foul is a flagrant two every single time...classic wind up, impact, and follow through with the forearm on an airborne player...he would have been tossed in game one of the regular season, game one of a playoff foul, game 7 of the NBA Finals...etc.

Just watched the replay of the Bynum foul, and agree. You're close on Carmelo, he got 15 games. Bucher figured 5 games each for the foul and ripping off his shirt. I didn't see the shirt thing, so I don't really know what he did. Greeny (my only reference for this at this point) thought it looked like a WWE move.

I wouldn't be surprised if the league hit him with something harder since he has a history of pulling this exact cheap shot.

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kq7RsUOemoI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can't remember a time the league really cared about a player taking off their jersey like this...I've seen this happen countless times whenever a player is ejected and no one makes a fuss about it. There isn't a penalty for taking off a jersey like there is NFHS. I suppose they could factor that in, but 5 games for taking off the jersey would be new. The only time a suspension is enhanced is if the player/coach does not leave in a timely fashion which Bynum did.

Colin Cowherd (yeah, he's an idiot) speculated that Bynum would get 5 - 10 games suspended. I'd be surprised if he got 10.

Like I said, Bynum received a 2 game suspension for a play similar to this in which he received a flagrant foul penalty two. If he only got two games for this, I would be shocked as the league could claim he's a repeat offender. Five games, plus say...a $50,000 dollar fine, but losing those five game checks seems like it would be enough for the league (IMO).

Three times in two years...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? :D

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

I think that's what he was talking about.

Not even close to the worse foul I've seen...do I think it was "bush league"....sure do. Criminal? Not in anyone's wildest dreams on a basketball court. What you're saying is Bynum should be suspended anywhere from 30 games to the entirety of next season...that's what Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest (73 regular + 13 post) missed respectively for their role in the Pacers-Pistons brawl for which they were charges brought against them....and that wasn't even for a basketball related foul.

JR.... what do you think about these fouls by the Lakers? :)

I agree with APG's assessment. Odom's could have been a flagrant 1 under different circumstances, but here it was best to get him off the court. Bynum has a great deal of growing up to do. Flagrant 2 and 10 game ban is appropriate.

Now who knows what Cuban said to Jackson after the game? That is what I wish to learn.

Yup. I have no idea how I managed to morph "years" into "yards". Obviously some synapses were not firing properly.

Two months ago, Bynum was called for a flagrant 2 against Michael Beasley.

Two seasons ago, Bynum committed a flagrant foul on Ben Wallace, sending him to the hospital with a broken rib. I don't know if it was a flagrant 1 or 2.

Both fouls were just like the foul on Sunday. Bynum jumps and drives his forearm/elbow into an airborne shooter. You can find all three on youTube.

It's all ok now.......(sarc)
 

He said he's sorry.......and I'm sure he's very, very sincere. :(

Los Angeles Lakers' Andrew Bynum apologizes for ugly shot on Dallas Mavericks' J.J. Barea - ESPN Los Angeles

The time for a meaningful apology was, at the latest, immediately after the game.

+1 He is the new Artest, apparently.

Los Angeles Lakers' Andrew Bynum suspended 5 games for J.J. Barea foul, fined $25K - ESPN Los Angeles

Got it right...five games it is plus a $25,000 fine. And the NBA only fined for taking off the shirt. I would have been shocked if they added games on for it. All and all he'll lose out on $702,272.

I hope if it gets donated to charity, that he doesn't get the tax benefit.

When a player receives a technical foul, ejection, suspension (1/90th of his annual salary per game) or other fine, the money is split evenly between the league and Players Association. Each then donates its share to a charity or charities of their choosing.

I am okay with that as long as the offending player doesn't get the benefit. That would be like Snaqs getting speeding ticket and his fine being tax-deductible. Hypothetically speaking.

I wouldn't say their exactly the same...speeding is criminal offense. What Bynum did was an offense (a bush league one at that) committed during the actions of a sporting event. If I had to venture, I'd bet he's be able to get the tax break.

Roni Deutch: The Tax Lady Blog: Lamar Odom Seeks Tax Deduction For NBA Fines and Fitness Fees

That reminds me, I need to file a revised tax return.

Do we get to count it twice if we get pulled over for speeding on our way to a game?

What's this "we" stuff?

I can't see them giving him 10 games for being lazy. Realisitically there is a chance the level of contact is flagrant 1 (or in a different situation a hard foul) if he had bothered to leave his feet and swing his arm at the ball/arms of the shooter. It also looks bad because of the situation and size disparity.

My best guess is 3-5 games and some cash for being lazy and stupid.

If you're talking about Bynum's foul, they already handed him a five game suspension and a $25,000 for taking off the jersey...in fact I posted the article just a few posts before yours. ;)

I don't think I'd characterize the foul as being lazy. That's too generous. Lazy defense leads to different contact, he led with his elbow into the shooter's chest.

Maybe he was embarrassed about being schooled.