Anyone watching the Blazers Lakers game?

[crownsy]

Ive seen it 900 times thanks to the WWL trying to work up outrage last year. I didn't think it was as bad as they made out, but IMO it was a bad foul.

while thats nice of chirs bosh to say, me and chris  don't see eye to eye on this issue . Ford changing made it worse, horford had no shot at the ball, period.

You can claim to have watched it as many times as you like, but you lose credibility when you say that a 6'8 defender running alongside a 5'11 point guard has "no shot at the ball".  I'm no fan of Al Horford, but the video is easy to see.

you lose crediblity with me when you disregard every circimstance of davis foul in the other thread that was bad (like making sure sideshow went down hard) and crucify ariza because he was "running harder"

I realize we all hate the lakers, I do to, but you don't need to make crazy conspiracy theroies about ariza out to end rudy's life to try to make it liek the NBA should suspened him 10 games.

They were both (davis and ariza) hard fouls. flagrant 1's to be sure. but as i said, not one person who is currently trying to convince me that trevor ariza had a intent to end rudy's life would ever make the same argument if he was wearing green.

Fan blinders are fun, but they shouldn't override fact. The NBA was right not to suspend him, just as they were with davis. I feel horrable for rudy, i love the kid, one of my top 10 non celtics to watch. but those are the breaks, its a physical game, despite stern's best efforts.

now odom, on the other hand, should get a one game suspension, since while ridculous, the rule is if you take one step, your gone.

Nice see that you're picking and choosing what you want to read from other posters to get to your point.  I've said that I have no problem with those who think it was a flagrant 1 and can see there point.  My question was that how can that be considered a flagrant 1, and Horford's a flagrant 2?  You're really starting to reach when you bring in Davis' foul, when it has nothing to do with my original question that you responded to.

what do you want me to argue about the horford foul on? I thought we had addressed that.

we both established we think completly diffrently about it, i don't see much point in rehashing it. you clearly think it was pretty clean, I don't at all. so why should i address a third post to it?

and why is it stretching to bring in davis foul? because you don't agree they were similar? that has little to nothign to do with my view that they are.

I also find it somewhat humorus that your saying i have no buisness bringing up the davis foul since its not relevant to what you want to argue between horford and ariza, but you want me to agree with you that your compraision of horford vs. ariza is valid. why should I? I realize to you they are cut from the same cloth, but they are not to me, which we already addressed.

If you dismiss my comparison of davis and ariza because they "aren't similar" why should i give wieght to yours between horford and ariza, which we already discovered we view diffrently?

 you only think it's stretching because you don't agree that they are at all the same, which is fine, while I find them to be similar. I realize one was in the open court. That sucks for rudy  . but they were both trying to accomplish the same thing, stop a basket from behind. they both got what they deserved, flagrant 1's.

 

[Drucci]

can you go ahead and link my the rule that says your not allowed to play hard and take away a break away layup when your down big or up big?

I'll wait, TP's in hand.

he got tossed, which was the correct move to keep control of the game, and he got a flagrant 1 and no time, also the correct call.


and again, it's easy to say "man i would still want him suspended if this was a celtics player!!!" but deep down, you all know that isn't true.

again, ariza got what was warented. My only problm with the NBA is if odom doesn't get a suspension for coming off the bench.

No rule says that you can't try to block a break-away lay-up when you team gets blown out (or gets the opponent blown out). But I don't know many players who act like Ariza did against Rudy, in the same situation. I just can't count the number of times when players prefer to let the opponent get an easy lay-up or a dunk when he is two steps away from doing it on a fast-break. Posey comes to my mind in the 2008 Finals' game 5. At the end of the game, Kobe went to an easy dunk after he stole the ball from Pierce. Posey could have block him hard but he preferred to follow him and keep his arms flat before making the inbound pass. And it was a close game. I mean, by watching 1 or 2 games of the regular season you can see that about 99,9% of the players act like this instead of trying a dangerous block.

[RebusRankin]

I would not have suspended Ariza but Odom deserves a suspension.

[cordobes]

Ariza wasn't even looking at the ball. He had no chance whatsoever of blocking the shot and he knew it when he leaped off the floor.

There was a swinging motion, the hard contact and the follow through, that's the clear definition of a flagrant 2, unlike Davis foul.

odd, he's not looking at rudy, the guy he's supposedly out to injure, either, mabey he's stoned and doesn't know whats going on?

or, far more likely, draw a line from his eyes forward. he is looking between rudy's hands, at where the ball would be if it hadent popped out a few seconds earlier in your still frame.

I'm sure i can find a still frame where davis isn't looking at the ball through side show's shoulder, but it doesn't prove jack about intent.

It was a hard foul, defintly a fragrant one. but to try to crucify ariza and laud davis for "hustle defense" for throwing side show to the floor head first is the height of homerism.

They both deserved flagrant 1's, which they both got. they shouldn't have been tossed, but thats the NBA. Toss now, reduce later is the rule of law. move on with your lives.  

I never said he was out to injury Rudy, just that he knew he had little chance at the ball, so he was trying to foul him - there's a difference between trying to foul and trying to hurt.

Anyway, you're wrong: Ariza received a flagrant 2. No way that was a flagrant 1, there was the swinging motion and the follow through and it was unn. Rambis explains things pretty well in the article linked in the front page.

The problem with this kind of fouls is that they're the wrong kind of hard fouls. When guys are in mid-air, on the open court, flying towards the basket after a running start, they can't be fooled like this, it's way too dangerous. The NBA should start suspending and fining guys for this kind of play (something they haven't been doing). Someday one guy will die on the court and people would just say "oh it was just an hard foul, he wasn't trying to injury him". True, but intention is not the point here - it's about how dangerous the play is. In a league where shooters and post players are so over-protected against ticky-tack fouls, hand-checks and small bumps, this is ridiculous. It makes clear that most officiating orientations are enforced to enhance the scoring, not to avoid serious injuries. It should be precisely the opposite.
 
Odom suspended 1 game, that's fair.

[Mr October]

cool. odom was suspended for a game.

lakers suck