Game 5: Lakers vs. Suns

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Why didn't the league suspend Evans for reaching up the shorts of Kaman and tugging on his jewels? That almost seems worse than a throwdown b/c it takes a long time for a shot to the nuts to heal. No way you could even hit a trey like Kobe did after the takedown.

An unprovoked malicious clotheslining is going to be as close to an automatic suspension as it gets. Just in case you've missed the whole issue, I just wanted to spell it out.

If you believe that suspensions for that kind of behaviour are unwarranted, then that is your perogative [read: delusion], but it is what it is.

If you think a takedown is more serious than having your nuts bruised for days, then that's your prerogative [read: delusion].

Also, if a suspension was so "automatic" why hasn't it been handed out yet (it's 1:30EST already)? And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

 

[Slap]

I am sorry but none of these guys so far should have been suspended. I just think if they are going to suspend, then Walton deserved it as much as Posey and Artest did. Saying he was just trying to stop a layup is a joke. His own dad said what he did was totally uncalled for. I jsut remember the Bad Boys. They fouled 10X harder than these fouls and were hardly ever suspended. The way the NBA is going is just another sign of the pussification America.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Slap
I am sorry but none of these guys so far should have been suspended. I just think if they are going to suspend, then Walton deserved it as much as Posey and Artest did. Saying he was just trying to stop a layup is a joke. His own dad said what he did was totally uncalled for. I jsut remember the Bad Boys. They fouled 10X harder than these fouls and were hardly ever suspended. The way the NBA is going is just another sign of the pussification America.

no, it's stopping the NBA from becoming a goddamn circus. The NBA does not want another Indiana/Detroit brawl ever again, and quite frankly neither do I. For everyone comparing Bell's foul to other fouls, I'd say that's a poor basis for an argument as to why he shouldn't be suspended. I think a clothesline like that is a very dangerous move, any injury to the neck could cause serious career-ending damage. There is no question that Bell will and should get suspended for that.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: torpid
Erm... didn't they suspend evans? I assumed so. He was assigned a flagrant 2, which I would assume meant suspended from the next game since it was assigned after the game.

Flagrant 2 I believe is automatic ejection, suspension is up to the league.

Evans was cited for "unnecessary and excessive contact" with Clippers center Chris Kaman and had his penalty upgraded from the technical foul that was originally called.

Kaman was assessed a flagrant foul penalty one for his actions after the second-quarter incident, but that was downgraded to a technical foul by the league.

Yeah, but the game was over and it was a day later, and then they called it flagrant 2. Doesn't it follow that there should be SOME sort of ejection, therefore in the next game?

 

[GrantMeThePower]

This game was fixed by the league. Period. What B.S.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

We can't read their minds now can we?

 

[Slap]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Slap
I am sorry but none of these guys so far should have been suspended. I just think if they are going to suspend, then Walton deserved it as much as Posey and Artest did. Saying he was just trying to stop a layup is a joke. His own dad said what he did was totally uncalled for. I jsut remember the Bad Boys. They fouled 10X harder than these fouls and were hardly ever suspended. The way the NBA is going is just another sign of the pussification America.

no, it's stopping the NBA from becoming a goddamn circus. The NBA does not want another Indiana/Detroit brawl ever again, and quite frankly neither do I. For everyone comparing Bell's foul to other fouls, I'd say that's a poor basis for an argument as to why he shouldn't be suspended. I think a clothesline like that is a very dangerous move, any injury to the neck could cause serious career-ending damage. There is no question that Bell will and should get suspended for that.

Was it a circus back when Magic, Jordan, Bird, and the Piston's "Bad Boys" played? Hell no it wasn't. It was good hard fault basketball games. The brawl would never had happened if it weren't for an idiot fan. The NBA will never be as good as it was in the 80's and early 90's.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Slap

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Slap
I am sorry but none of these guys so far should have been suspended. I just think if they are going to suspend, then Walton deserved it as much as Posey and Artest did. Saying he was just trying to stop a layup is a joke. His own dad said what he did was totally uncalled for. I jsut remember the Bad Boys. They fouled 10X harder than these fouls and were hardly ever suspended. The way the NBA is going is just another sign of the pussification America.

no, it's stopping the NBA from becoming a goddamn circus. The NBA does not want another Indiana/Detroit brawl ever again, and quite frankly neither do I. For everyone comparing Bell's foul to other fouls, I'd say that's a poor basis for an argument as to why he shouldn't be suspended. I think a clothesline like that is a very dangerous move, any injury to the neck could cause serious career-ending damage. There is no question that Bell will and should get suspended for that.

Was it a circus back when Magic, Jordan, Bird, and the Piston's "Bad Boys" played? Hell no it wasn't. It was good hard fault basketball games. The brawl would never had happened if it weren't for an idiot fan. The NBA will never be as good as it was in the 80's and early 90's.

well that's your opinion. i think this year's playoffs have been some of the best NBA basketball i've ever seen.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Slap
I am sorry but none of these guys so far should have been suspended. I just think if they are going to suspend, then Walton deserved it as much as Posey and Artest did. Saying he was just trying to stop a layup is a joke. His own dad said what he did was totally uncalled for. I jsut remember the Bad Boys. They fouled 10X harder than these fouls and were hardly ever suspended. The way the NBA is going is just another sign of the pussification America.

no, it's stopping the NBA from becoming a goddamn circus. The NBA does not want another Indiana/Detroit brawl ever again, and quite frankly neither do I. For everyone comparing Bell's foul to other fouls, I'd say that's a poor basis for an argument as to why he shouldn't be suspended. I think a clothesline like that is a very dangerous move, any injury to the neck could cause serious career-ending damage. There is no question that Bell will and should get suspended for that.

The Pistons/Pacers brawl wasn't ignited by fouls any harder than we've seen this playoffs, it was ignited by a dipsht fan throwing a beer at someone, plain and simple (bad example IMO).

I agree Bell's takedown was dangerous, but my qualm is that the league should be consistent in suspending people who do this stuff (testicles and Evans). If you're going to suspend one and not the other, it's illogical because both were dangerous/reckless. And it shouldn't stop there (Kwame/Walton).

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

We can't read their minds now can we?

What's your point? Phil and Kobe both said publically it shouldn't warrant a suspension, what more do you want?

 

[morkman100]

Why didn't the league suspend Evans for reaching up the shorts of Kaman and tugging on his jewels? That almost seems worse than a throwdown b/c it takes a long time for a shot to the nuts to heal. No way you could even hit a trey (like Kobe did after the takedown) after getting your nuts yanked hard.

Reggie Evans actaully said something interesting. He said that when guys usually get hit in the balls, they react: they fall to the floor, or they double-over, or show some expression of pain on their face. Kaman didn't react in a painful way at all. From the looks of the play, he felt the "contact", then turns to see who did it, then retaliated with the shove. I don't recall seeing him reacting to, as he said it, Evan's "trying to pull my balls off". Evan might have touched Kaman's sack, but I don't think he pulled it.

It was still a very strange move (and very funny too... the TNT crew couldn't stop laughing about it).

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

We can't read their minds now can we?

What's your point? Phil and Kobe both said publically it shouldn't warrant a suspension, what more do you want?

You're the one asking for the reasons why they said the things they said.

 

[morkman100]

And it shouldn't stop there (Kwame/Walton).

So every hard foul and flagrant foul should result in a suspension?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

We can't read their minds now can we?

What's your point? Phil and Kobe both said publically it shouldn't warrant a suspension, what more do you want?

You're the one asking for the reasons why they said the things they said.

Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The Pistons/Pacers brawl wasn't ignited by fouls any harder than we've seen this playoffs, it was ignited by a dipsht fan throwing a beer at someone, plain and simple (bad example IMO).

I agree Bell's takedown was dangerous, but my qualm is that the league should be consistent in suspending people who do this stuff (testicles and Evans). If you're going to suspend one and not the other, it's illogical because both were dangerous/reckless. And it shouldn't stop there (Kwame/Walton).

I dunno, I think Artest was also largely to blame. Only a thug thinks that he has to go beat up fans when hit with a plastic cup full of beer.

I agree about the second part in regards to evans, but I still think that walton is less severe. Still, it might have warranted a suspension.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: morkman100

And it shouldn't stop there (Kwame/Walton).

So every hard foul and flagrant foul should result in a suspension?

Well, if the league wants to be consistent then yes, if it is excessively flagrant. Therein lies the problem it's subjective. They have obviously shown that they want to "surprise" us with the results and don't care about criticism.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

The two bolded parts are contradictory to each other.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

The two bolded parts are contradictory to each other.

I could have just as easily said: "Kobe and Phil thought otherwise". Saying "why" implied that jj was unaware of their opinions (formatted as a question, just in case he wasn't aware). Take it out of question format and take the "why" off of it, and it's the same statement/facts. Understand?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

The two bolded parts are contradictory to each other.

I could have just as easily said: "Kobe and Phil thought otherwise". Saying "why" implied that jj was unaware of their opinions (formatted as a question, just in case he wasn't aware). Take it out of question format and take the "why" off of it, and it's the same statement/facts. Understand?

Read what you originally wrote:

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Anyone have a link or picture to the foul, didn't catch the game last night.

http://www.azcentral.com/homepage_index/pics/0503bellcov.jpg

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

The two bolded parts are contradictory to each other.

I could have just as easily said: "Kobe and Phil thought otherwise". Saying "why" implied that jj was unaware of their opinions (formatted as a question, just in case he wasn't aware). Take it out of question format and take the "why" off of it, and it's the same statement/facts. Understand?

Read what you originally wrote:

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

Please leave the guy alone.. when it comes to basketball he talks with way too much emotion and too little rational logic

 

[JasonT724]

I like how many people including Raja Bell are justifying the flagrant foul by saying he was elbowed earlier.

1. Slow motioned replays on TNT clearly showed there was no contact between Kobe's elbow and Raja's face. Even Charles Barkley said there was no contact but he seems to have alot of crazy opinions.

2. During Raja's press conference, he was asked what provoked him. He answered elbows to the face by Kobe. Another reporter asked him if they were from this game and he replied yes. Then another one asked if it was the elbow right before his flagrant that provoked it and he said yes. Why were there so many follow up questions from that one particular elbow? Maybe because there really was no elbow?

As for proof.... I have it on TIVO if someone is desperate enough to really want to see it to believe it.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Uh, I think you missed the point. jj said it was easily an automatic suspension. I said, IF that was the case, then why did Kobe and Phil think otherwise? You're looking into it too much, Kobe and Phil have said that Raja's hit should not result in suspension. There is no reason to analyze "why" Kobe/Phil thought that, since it's black and white (i.e. hit warrant suspension/hit not warrant suspension). Kobe/Phil's opinion is a direct contrast to the omgwtfautosuspension crowd.

The two bolded parts are contradictory to each other.

I could have just as easily said: "Kobe and Phil thought otherwise". Saying "why" implied that jj was unaware of their opinions (formatted as a question, just in case he wasn't aware). Take it out of question format and take the "why" off of it, and it's the same statement/facts. Understand?

Read what you originally wrote:

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And why did Phil and Kobe both say they didn't think it warranted a suspension IF it was as automatic as you say it was? :roll:

You obviously have never partaken in a debate, when a point is made in question format. Taking that statement literally shows your lack of understanding. Maybe it would have helped you if I rephrased it as: "Kobe and Phil obviously didn't think it warranted an automatic suspension like you did." Are are you still having trouble understanding how a debate works, or do we need to spell it out to you a third time? My new sig should be: "Never underestimate the education level of the people you interact with."

 

[lederhosen]

I think that you have to be consistent first with the series. I did not see the Walton foul, but the Kwame one that someone posted is just as bad as Bell's was IMO.

 

[ForumMaster]

suns. and they did win.