Fanboy Thread - game 7

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know what the NBA did, but that does not mean we all agree with those decisions they make after the fact.

And if that happens at other levels, I would not see a single supervisor of mine saying to not T Tyler H in that situation. I can see any official in my experience and who I work for easily be supported for that type of call. Getting knocked down and getting up in someone's face is not an excuse IMO. Actually I could see one of them saying to me, "Did you need to eject Cole?" But if explained what was said or knowing what was said, that opinion could change. And Tyler said something to Anderson, he was not totally innocent.

Peace

Didn't think so...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Didn't think so...

What else did you expect?

I'm no Hansbrough fan by any stretch of the imagination but he didn't do anything. He just got up. Maybe he braced himself once he realized he was about to be shoved again, but that is about it. He certainly didn't get in anyone's face. Sure, he may have said something but unless we know what he said, you can't assume it was problematic. He may have said "What was that for?" since there was no reason for him to have been chucked to the floor. If those are T'able words, the Rut must never make it to halftime with any players left.

[JRutledge]

He got up and got in Anderson's face. He did not stay down or go in the other direction. And his mouth was moving, so he was not silent either.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He got up and got in Anderson's face. He did not stay down or go in the other direction. And his mouth was moving, so he was not silent either.

Peace

He can't get up? Or say "What was that for?"

???

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

but unless we know what he said, you can't assume it was problematic. He may have said "What was that for?" since there was no reason for him to have been chucked to the floor. If those are T'able words, the Rut must never make it to halftime with any players left.

You say you can't assume what he said was problematic, yet you somehow assume it wasn't. Use a LITTLE bit of common sense here. He was just knocked on his ass. Do you really think he got up and thanked his opponent? Do you REALLY think he simply said, "What was that for?"

This is kind of ridiculous - you say you can't assume, and then you not only make an assumption opposite of what he made, but you further project that assumption onto Rut and assume he would T someone up for saying something innocuous. Sorry ... not KIND OF ridiculous. EXCEEDINGLY ridiculous.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You say you can't assume what he said was problematic, yet you somehow assume it wasn't. Use a LITTLE bit of common sense here. He was just knocked on his ass. Do you really think he got up and thanked his opponent? Do you REALLY think he simply said, "What was that for?"

This is kind of ridiculous - you say you can't assume, and then you not only make an assumption opposite of what he made, but you further project that assumption onto Rut and assume he would T someone up for saying something innocuous. Sorry ... not KIND OF ridiculous. EXCEEDINGLY ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as saying that Hansbrough's and Cole's actions were the same thing.

Almost as ridiculous as saying that Hansbrough got up and got in Anderson's face.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Almost as ridiculous as saying that Hansbrough's and Cole's actions were the same thing.

Almost as ridiculous as saying that Hansbrough got up and got in Anderson's face.

I actually did not say they were the same thing. I more or less asked why they were seen as so different? But to act like their are no similarities is also very silly when both Cole and Hansbrough said something to their opponent after a physical confrontation of some kind. The one guy that made no contact after the fact and was ejected. Yes not the same, just like the push that Anderson did to Hansbrough was not the same as Muhammad's push on James. But one was ejected and the other was not for some reason. But these situations are certainly similar in nature and was asked when the situations took place on this site and other places.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Almost as ridiculous as saying that Hansbrough's and Cole's actions were the same thing.

Agreed... although no one actually said that.

I love people that put words in other people's mouths and then ridicule them for what they didn't say.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Agreed... although no one actually said that.

I love people that put words in other people's mouths and then ridicule them for what they didn't say.

And for the peanut gallery...

You are correct also. My bad.

Rutledge said that Hansbrough's actions were worse.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You say you can't assume what he said was problematic, yet you somehow assume it wasn't. Use a LITTLE bit of common sense here. He was just knocked on his ass. Do you really think he got up and thanked his opponent? Do you REALLY think he simply said, "What was that for?"

This is kind of ridiculous - you say you can't assume, and then you not only make an assumption opposite of what he made, but you further project that assumption onto Rut and assume he would T someone up for saying something innocuous. Sorry ... not KIND OF ridiculous. EXCEEDINGLY ridiculous.

Not at all. I'm saying that unless you KNOW what he said, you can't penalize him for what he said. If that is assuming, then that standard means that you must T every player who appears to talk at an opponent when you can't hear what they're saying. I really doubt you're proposing that.

Put simply, his mouth moving is fully insufficient to warrant any penalty.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not at all. I'm saying that unless you KNOW what he said, you can't penalize him for what he said. If that is assuming, then that standard means that you must T every player who appears to talk at an opponent when you can't hear what they're saying. I really doubt you're proposing that.

Put simply, his mouth moving is fully insufficient to warrant any penalty.

Ah... so you're not saying that WE don't know what he said (which is what I thought you were saying), but the referee on the spot didn't know what he said. OK. If that's true, I agree. However, I assume (there's that word again) that the referee who actually chose to penalize the player did hear what he was penalizing him for.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

However, I assume (there's that word again) that the referee who actually chose to penalize the player did hear what he was penalizing him for.

Evidently, that too would be a bad assumption.

Had he actually said something worthy of a T, the league would not have rescinded the technical foul.