Cheap Shot Rob
by John R on May 15, 2007 9:59 AM PDT
Email
PrintThe buzz all over the Roundball-o-sphere is what will be the fate of Amare and Boris. They left the bench. "By rule" they must be suspended. Noone asked, but if I was Commish, I wouldn't suspend any Suns. The idea behind punishment, be it hoop or otherwise, is to discourage a behavior. It is a disincentive. The way the rules are written, there may be a significant problem. Teams are actually incentivized to have a minor player provoke an incident. If planned for, the reaction will be all on the other side. What we need is a disincentive for this. Here is how this disincentive should go:
1) If no Sun is suspended, Cheap Shot Fresh Prince should miss the rest of the series. A 3 game suspension will be sufficient. The message is sent: Do no provoke, only your team will lose.
2) If one or more Suns are suspended, Brob should be suspended for the remainder of the playoffs AND 5 games into the regular season. Also, the Spurs should not be able to activate a player to replace him. They should be forced to 11. The same message is sent to both the player and team: You may get away with it, but the price will be high. The team will lose a rotation player for a long time and the player will lose significant money by missing regular season games.
UPDATE:Evil wins! Flawless victory! Amare/Diaw out 1. Horry to miss 2. Seems just to me. I guess.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Frightening...
My immediate thought, as I saw Amare being held back by Iavaroni, was how easy it would be to sway a series this way.
It goes something like this - while one or more of your opponent's stars are on the bench (preferably younger, more volatile sorts) send a scrub into the game to deliver some sort of cheap shot. Do it in front of the opponent's bench, so the impact and reaction are more visceral. Under the insane 'don't leave the bench rule' as written, I would expect you would get one or more suspensions about 75% of the time. Well worth the risk of 2 free throws and a suspension for your 12th man.
The only way the NBA gets out of this is by admitting that it is a bad rule, and changing it here and now. A suspension of Stoudemire for game 5 is almost tantamount to a free pass for the Spurs into the Western Finals - no suspension, without a full admission that the rule is wrong, is selective enforcement, which will always lead to trouble.
Of course, Baron avoided a suspension for his cheap shot on Fisher, while he received a suspension for a swing and a miss at QRoss earlier this season, so we already know that selective enforcement exists.
Eeeeeeeeeeeasy there, sailor!
I'm sure it's because the league is trying to clean up it's "bad image." Don't get me started on that jive. Baseball is full of guys jacking up on beef-roids, football players are running around bustin' caps, makin' it rain, and training dogs to fight (I'm looking at you, Mr. Vick), and basketball is the sport with the image problems? Compared to what, MLS soccer? Maybe the sport should be concerned with it's real fans becoming apathetic instead of trying to court Joe Midwest who's only watching because NASCAR isn't on 'til the weekend. Sheesh.
by spartacus on May 15, 2007 1:20 PM PDT reply actions
Your opinion
The extended penalty isn't because the act is so bad, it is to deter intentionally trying to injure an opposing player from becoming a tactic, which it clearly is. I am against this. It is not within the letter or the spirit of the game. It is an extreme admission of weakness on the part of the perp.
I couldn't care less about the MLB or NFL. I find those sports boring and contrived to a degree that makes them rediculous.
Let me guess, you stumbled over here from Pounding the Rock. If you did, your comments are quite unsurprising. To be a Spurs fan requires a subjugation of self almost rivaling that of a Lakers fan.
Spartacus...
Don't be mean John! Play nice!
by Steve Perrin on May 15, 2007 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks, Clippersteve!
I am Spartacus.
Ugh, that was lame.
by spartacus on May 15, 2007 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
SPURS FAN??!??!
I'm certainly not advocating that the Spurs have an advantage by giving up Horry for Amare and Diaw, I just don't think any of the players should be suspended at all. 10 years ago the flagrant fouls of today were just plain ol' personal fouls. Kobe flailing his arms and catching someone in the grill? You'd be lucky if that was called at all. I don't know what basketball you are accustomed to watching, but in it's heyday, I think we could easily agree that the game was much more physical than it is now. We can disagree as to whether that is a good or bad thing, but I get extremely frustrated at hand check fouls on the perimeter, guys taking charges on passes, etc.
I'm not saying we should let guys run around and beat each other up, I'm just saying that playoff basketball is/was always inherently more physical (Jordan rules, and that wasn't even THAT long ago) and some lee-way should be given to preserve the intense atmosphere and rivalry between the two teams. And I disagree that intentionally trying to injure another player is becoming a tactic. Where's your proof of this? Guys are getting frustrated and making boneheaded decisions, point blank. Bowen is another case and if you want to argue that he's a dirty player, I'm certainly not going to refute that, but to say that this is endemic across the league is somewhat of an odd statement to make.
The fact that you don't like MLB or the NFL has no bearing on the point I made. Regardless of whether you like them or not, you'd probably agree that the NBA has the lesser of images of the big 3.
The fact that you dislike physical basketball would also maybe go a bit further towards explaining your utter disdain of all things Maggette, no? Maybe I'm reading too far into that.
by spartacus on May 15, 2007 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Maggs
I'm for keeping good Maggette. I'm against bad Maggette. The only one who controls which one we get is Maggette.
Here's my Maggs prediction for next year. I'm going to bury it here because its more risky than what I'd usually do. He is the starter, but plays no more than 60 games.
I don't WANT Maggs to have to go, but for the team to get better, the main threat on the wing needs to get more consistant.
The past
I'm definitely not talking hand check fouls and I have written all over the place that I despise the "restricted area". Those are just weaknesses in officiating. I'm talking Baron Davis elbowing Fish in the head, Horry jamming Nash and yes Kobe throwing bows. I put them to the fight test. If it would provoke a fight amongst your friends in a pickup game in your driveway, someone has to be suspended. If my best friend followed through on his shot by flailing his arm to his right and caught me in the grill two feet away I would put him on his ass. These are the plays I'm talking about.
I'm not saying there is wide-spread action to hurt players. I'm discussing the issue from the angle of economic incentives. Right now, as written, the rules do encourage Horry's behavior. Was it premeditated? We'll never really know. Was it premeditated last year when Posey had at Heinrich? Almost certainly. We know what Raja had up his sleeve for Kobe. (But even then, proper action by the league against Kobe in the preceeding games could have prevented it.) All I'm saying is the league needs to look at its incentives. Tomorrow night, what is stopping the Suns from running Pat Burke out there for one play to kick Duncan in the junk, or worse a calf, etc? Not alot. Next to nothing really. Burke goes down, but if one or more Spurs react, then the Suns come out on top. That's my larger point. That we are creatures of incentive. What's in it for me? Let's make sure our rules are structured so that the proper actions are rewarded or discouraged.
Hauling off and throwing an elbow out of frustration like Davis did should be way discouraged. Throwing an open-ice check to the ground obviously on purpose, for whatever reason strategic or otherwise, should be discouraged. The current rules don't really accomplish this.
I like physical play. I will praise EB to no end and noone frustrates within the rules like Q. But there are reasonable limits. McHale dumping Rambis was an ugly thing, not a thing to be looked back on fondly. Taken to the extreme, one moment of bad choices and you are Kermit Washinton.
Good points
The fight test is a decent rubric, but it's not universally applicable. If you accidentally got drilled with an elbow, maybe you'd be ready to fight, but you have to take into account intent. From what I'm reading now about the Baron/Fish incident, Fish "ran into" Baron's elbow. Check the AP article. And check what Fish says about it: "I think the game is played at too intense of a level and too emotional of a level to be able to after a game go back and judge what a guy's intention was," Fisher said. Did Baron mean to drill Fish? You can't definitively tell me either way. If Horry wanted to take out Nash, he could've EASILY used his forearm to hit him, but all he did was hip-check him. And therein lies the problem with these crazy suspensions. It's too damn difficult to judge intent!
As far as incentives go, nothing exists to stop Burke from destroying Duncan's nads in the next game. Yet ask yourself, if there are no incentives to deter this behavior, then how come it doesn't happen more often? It's only recently that this has become an issue, and I personally believe that the problem is overregulation, not a lack of more rules and punishments to the contrary. If the league didn't believe it had some invisible mandate to "clean up" play, then they wouldn't be so fast to penalize players for reacting to other bad behavior and making this an issue in the first place. Baron throws a bow, that's what flagrant fouls are for. Call one, end of story. Horry tosses Nash? Flagrant 2, no suspension. What sensical changes to the rules would you make that would take into account intent? I just don't think there are any that would be univerally applicable.
Of course I understand that the league wants to protect its most valuable asset, its players. I don't encourage dirty play, just physical play. So I guess in a roundabout way, we're in agreement with each other. Longwindedly, to be sure.
But not about Maggs. How about Dunleavy run some damn plays for Maggs when he's in the game instead of him picking up the scraps from the offense? Maggs isn't a great post-passer, but Dunleavy's runs plays to Maggs side to post up Brand. Part of good coaching is playing the hand you're dealt.
by spartacus on May 15, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Right to the point
Precisely right. The problem is the current regulation stating that absolutely if you leave the bench, you get one game. This creates the incentive to provoke a bench. One step out of instinct, even caught immediately, and your team is in the hole.
I outlined how I would change it. The punishment should fit the crime. Diaw stood up, this cost him half as much time as Horry flooring someone then further provoking Bell. Wrong.
I do like the league looking at plays after the fact. And I think you can judge intent. It doesn't matter if Kobe intended to hurt someone with his elbows or just didn't care enough to make sure he wasn't inadvertently elbowing someone in the face. He contorted his shot motion like that on purpose. That is enough intent. This goes to the pickup analogy. You know when someone catches you accidently and you get mad out of instinct, but you step back. You know when there was intent and maybe you have to say that its not acceptable.
On Maggs:
To make him a focal point of the offense, he fails some tests in this regard for me.
- When he drives, who has more control over if he scores or not? Corey or the refs? Maybe more than any other player, even Wade, its the refs. Strike 1.
- Shot selection. I know I grimace more often when I see Corey elevate for a jumper than any other Clipper. Strike 2.
- Passing is strike 3.
I'd just like to see Corey moved for someone who could either supercede Sam in that two-man or be that wing who can be highly successful playing off the ball. Get Corey in a place where he can be the clear second option in a two-option type of environment. The Clippers need a 3 who can d-up, hit the open jumper (especially the 3), and play off the ball in a moderately complex offense and be comfortable doing it.
Seattle seems about right to me. Corey and TT or Corey and Sam for Lewis.
The precedent...
Don't forget, it's not really in the NBA's interests to allow the two-time MVP to be roughed up. Fighting's cool and all, but Steve Nash sells a lot of tickets and jerseys.
by Steve Perrin on May 15, 2007 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice
The good news is, not being a Spurs fan, there was nothing mean directed, but I stand by my harsh words against violence in basketball. Its just diametric to good play. I welcome all efforts to remove it from what is at its heart a non-contact sport. That isn't to say there shouldn't be contact, but that in most cases, much contact is an infaction.
I stand by what I said about Spurs fans. They have made me sad for them with their unbridled defending of Bowen and Horry lately.
Check out...
The most interesting point comes from Steve Kerr on Yahoo. He points out that after the Francisco Elson dunk early in the second quarter, when Elson didn't quite hang on the rim long enough to avoid landing on James Jones' shoulders, Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen are clearly seen off the bench, several steps on the court in the background. The moment was less heated, but clearly a strict 'letter of the law' interpretation would indicate that Duncan and Bowen should be suspended.
Players are on the court all the time - cheering their teammates, waving towels, chirping at refs. If you watched every minute of every game looking for examples, you could find dozens. Then the question becomes, what's an altercation? This is of course the one conceivable out for the NBA - to say that there was no altercation on the Horry play, and therefore the rule does not apply.
The rule is, of course, insane. It has to be applied with common sense, but it's very difficult to codify common sense. (This is why, for instance, the 'Defensive Three Second' rule, which was designed to keep teams from playing zone defenses, is continually called against teams playing man-to-man defense.) From the comment above, you should always commit a cheap shot in front of the opposition bench, so that the cameras will capture the evidence for suspensions from your opponents only - I'm not convinced that no Spurs left their bench after Horry's cheap shot last night - how would we know? The camera's weren't pointed there.
How crazy is it to hand out suspensions based on the actions of players on the bench, when the cameras are not showing both benches continually?
Unless the NBA can use a little common sense here (the jury is out on that one, but don't hold your breath), the only logical conclusion is to put microchips in everyone's butt. An automated sensing system will track all players not currently on the floor, and register an automatic suspension whenever a player strays too far from their bench. That will be great!
LOL
You know what, can I get this for my row too? Seats 1-4 are me and another season ticket holder. The rest of the row is generally empty, but it never fails that the 2 or 3 random people to sit in that row every game have to go in and out via the aisle on our side. LOOK LEFT. THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF STAIRS AND THE PATH IS UNOBSTRUCTED.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
