Possibility of KG and Perk suspensions (merged)

[BASSTHUMPER]

"I don't know why people are knocking Pierce for not being a leader.   When KG came here, everyone anointed him the new leader so shouldn't we be looking at him? "

i never looked a kevin being the leader....kevin is here to help paul get that ring...thats why danny got him here to help not take over pauls postion as capt..

[crownsy]

Pierce and allen have both said in articles they consider him the teams leader. Pierce has also said it's with his blessing.

[biggs1221]

Perk is almost definitely a goner (as is Marvin Williams).  He came off the bench (no matter how slightly), so a suspension is automatic.  If the refs suspended Amare and Diaw, they'll get Perk and Williams (although Perk didn't come very far onto the court.)

But if you watch the tape, Perk was standing up and on the court before the fight even broke out.  All he literally did was take one step forward, and did not have to be restrained or anything.  If I recall, Amare and Diaw actually got off the bench and then retreated.  So we have 1 guy (Perk) who went nowhere and displayed no intent at any time to get involved, versus guys who were about to enter the fray and thought better of it.  I think the cases are easily distinguishable.  And if people thought the Amare suspension went to far, a suspension of Perk would go further.

[CDawg834]

I am not going to blame the officiating for the 2 losses, but I will consider them responsible if there is a suspension for Garnett.  They failed to do their jobs and keep the series under control, and this is what happened.  Horford should have gotten a tech at the end of Game 3 without question, and the fact that the Hawks got away with hard fouls and the Celtics did not sent a clear message:  The refs weren't going to protect the Celtics, so the Celtics need to protect themselves.  Things got physical in the paint last night, and the altercation started.  During the broadcast, Mike Gorman said "you knew this was coming."  The KG elbow wasn't just a reaction to Pachulia, I think it was a reaction to the whole series.  The officiating in Atlanta was bad in Game 3, and in Game 4 the refs didn't get it under control until it was too late.  JSmooths "clean block" on the Rondo layup would have been a Flagrant-2 if Powe did it to Horford, the replay showed his arm got Rondo in the face.

If KG gets suspended, the refs deserve some of the blame.

As for Perk, maybe the league should put seatbelts in all the seats so no one can move until they are about to check in.  Then a coach can go unbuckle the seatbelt for them.  They could also play the theme to Mister Rogers over the PA to calm everyone down and everyone can hug and laugh.  He took literally one step forward (a natural reaction) then stopped.  The fact a suspension is being even considered is a joke.  That applies to Marvin Williams as well.

[biggs1221]

I don't think Garnett will be suspended for the elbow to Pachulia.  Kidd, it turns out, won't be suspended for his flagrant on Pargo...so, if you have to make a comparison, KG shouldn't get suspended for his physical contact with Pachulia.  However, I am sure, the NBA reviews each case on its own merit.  In regard to the contact with the ref, that could be the thing that does KG in for a suspension.  However, it seems the league is being a bit lenient with the suspensions this post-season and maybe they will let this slide.  I know the rule is strictly no physical contact with the refs, but it was not as if KG jerked the ref and flung him half way across the court.  As someone else posted earlier, I think the league will try to determine if Garnett was fully aware it was the ref he was trying to remove from himself or not.

"Any player or coach guilty of intentional physical contact with an official shall automatically be suspended without pay for one game. A fine and/or longer period of suspension will result if circumstances so dictate."  http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_e.html?nav=ArticleList

Williams & Perkins are most likely suspended.  The rule is the rule, I guess.  We will all just have to wait and see how this one plays out.

What I still don't understand is why is the ref allowed to restrain a player.   He was grabbed from behind and restrained by a ref but somehow KG should get suspended from trying to get away from someone restraining him physically? I guess I don't understand how KG should be suspended for that. If anything the ref has some explaining to do imo. Someone also brought up the point that if what KG did was worth a suspention,  where was the ejection? The ref obviously did not think that merited one.

Exactly.  While there is perhaps no basis in the rule for it, I think a distinction should be made between voluntarily making contact with an official, versus responding to an official making contact with you.  Moreover, if the rule requires a player intentionally make contact with an official, I am not sure how KG did that.  Again, he was essentially attempting to not be in contact with the official. 

Moreover, if everyone were to take the rule literally, then everyone who brushed up with an official during the skirmish should be suspended.  I guess all 10 guys on the floor should be suspended

[BASSTHUMPER]

how could paul give up being captian after all those losing seasons he was by himself on this team..?..he played hard every night knowing they were the worse team in the league..paul proved himself over the years as celtic now let kevin work for it..

[crownsy]

how could paul give up being captian after all those losing seasons he was by himself on this team..?..he played hard every night knowing they were the worse team in the league..paul proved himself over the years as celtic now let kevin work for it..

captain does not = automatic super leader.

plenty of teams have a captain that is not thier vocal leader. Being the cpatain is about what you mentioned, being what people look up to. it doesn't require you to also be the fire breathing leader.

to use a hated team, derek jeter is the captain of the yankee's, but he likes to lead by example, not with his words or speechs, he leaves that to posada and others.

can't use the sox because vtek is that guy 

[Roy Hobbs]

As someone else posted earlier, I think the league will try to determine if Garnett was fully aware it was the ref he was trying to remove from himself or not.

"Any player or coach guilty of intentional physical contact with an official shall automatically be suspended without pay for one game. A fine and/or longer period of suspension will result if circumstances so dictate."  http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_e.html?nav=ArticleList

It's going to come down to whether the NBA uses a legal definition of "intentional", or a more generally understood one.  In terms of the law, "intentional" generally means somebody meant to take action, not that they intended specific consequences to result.  In other words, if KG meant to put his hands on somebody / push somebody / extricate himself physically from the situation, that's the intentional act.  It doesn't matter whether or not he intended to push a referee, so long as he intended to push somebody.

[Roy Hobbs]

What I still don't understand is why is the ref allowed to restrain a player.   He was grabbed from behind and restrained by a ref but somehow KG should get suspended from trying to get away from someone restraining him physically?

Why shouldn't a referee be able to restrain a player?  Isn't that their job?  To break up players, before it becomes a full-blown physical confrontation?

I think arguments are going way too far out of their way to justify our players.  It's fair to argue that KG didn't do anything egregious, or that he didn't have the requisite intent, or whatever.  But to argue that the refs should just leave players in the middle of a scuffle unchecked?  That, to me, makes little sense.

[NoraG1]

As someone else posted earlier, I think the league will try to determine if Garnett was fully aware it was the ref he was trying to remove from himself or not.

"Any player or coach guilty of intentional physical contact with an official shall automatically be suspended without pay for one game. A fine and/or longer period of suspension will result if circumstances so dictate."  http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_e.html?nav=ArticleList

It's going to come down to whether the NBA uses a legal definition of "intentional", or a more generally understood one.  In terms of the law, "intentional" generally means somebody meant to take action, not that they intended specific consequences to result.  In other words, if KG meant to put his hands on somebody / push somebody / extricate himself physically from the situation, that's the intentional act.  It doesn't matter whether or not he intended to push a referee, so long as he intended to push somebody.

Why is the ref allowed to restrain a player physically? Get between the players is fine but to restain them, I don't agree with that.

[Section 87]

After reviewing the video, it's clear that Garnett knew it was Rush's arm that he was grabbing. At first, Rush was in front of Garnett, guiding him away from the altercation. Garnett went back toward the ruckus, and the only reason Rush was behind Garnett was because Garnett pushed past him. I'm a big fan of the Celtics and Garnett, but he intentionally made physical contact with Rush. He grabbed Rush's arm. The rule doesn't have an exception for cases, like this one, where the ref makes contact first. Rush could have immediately given Garnett another T and ejected him. But he didn't. Must be a part of that pro-Celtics conspiracy masterminded by Stern.

As for Perk, he took one step across the sideline, but that was as far as he went. He did not proceed toward the altercation, and he never left the bench area. I don't know what the standard is; it's not in the rulebook. If the criterion is whether he crossed the sideline, he's in trouble, but the sideline is not generally a hard-and-fast boundary when play is suspended.

[Bankshot]

how could paul give up being captian after all those losing seasons he was by himself on this team..?..he played hard every night knowing they were the worse team in the league..paul proved himself over the years as celtic now let kevin work for it..

I get what your's saying and I agree, but the team has anointed him the leader, with PP's blessing, so that's what he is.

[Redz]

After reviewing the video, it's clear that Garnett knew it was Rush's arm that he was grabbing. At first, Rush was in front of Garnett, guiding him away from the altercation. Garnett went back toward the ruckus, and the only reason Rush was behind Garnett was because Garnett pushed past him. I'm a big fan of the Celtics and Garnett, but he intentionally made physical contact with Rush. He grabbed Rush's arm. The rule doesn't have an exception for cases, like this one, where the ref makes contact first. Rush could have immediately given Garnett another T and ejected him. But he didn't. Must be a part of that pro-Celtics conspiracy masterminded by Stern.

Outstanding! 

[CelticsWhat35]

I'd like to know why it's 2:16 EST the day before game 5 and there's still no decision on suspensions??  If the NBA's reasoning is always that they go by the letter of the law, then their should be no room for discussion.  You look at the video, and the decision is made.  Why should it take this long??

[BASSTHUMPER]

well i wanna see capt kev and sidekick power paul do they thang on humpday...*tomorrow*..