Green Suspended for game 5

[ATL96Steeler]

Here is another fact that gets lost in this. Every single Green play was controversial. NONE of them were blatant, no doubt, old school flagrant fouls. All 3 were upgraded after the fact.

Go look at the Beasley play again. There was 1 second on the clock and the Dubs were down 1. He was trying to commit the foul as soon as the ball was thrown in. He picked Beasley up, and then gently set him on the court. There was no body slam there.

The Adams kick? Maybe intentional, maybe not. Some said they did not think it should have even been a flagrant 1.

That brings me back to the way the rules are written. I have always been a supporter of taking non-basketball plays out of the NBA in order to make the game more safe. Still though, I have an issue with the wording, and interpretation of what makes a flagrant foul.

UnNecessary contact can mean just about anything. Did Green need to pick Beasley up? Of course not. But it was also clear that he was trying to commit a simple foul. Nobody was injured, nobody retaliated. THe game was simply over.

This is where the league needs to go back to the old "Intentional Foul". For the Beasley play, award 2 shots and the ball. Game over, Rockets win. No need to further punish Green. Same thing here with the LeBron play.

The league did not need to upgrade any of these fouls, but they did anyway. People can talk about the accumulation of points all they want, but rememeber that Green could just as easily be sitting on 1 point right now.

Yeah, yeah, again, you make good points, but the reality is...this is not about the league...they've set the bar on how they want the game played and what the consequences are if you don't. Has the application of the punishment (or not) been opportunistic for GS (vs OKC) and CLE? Absolutely.

While well written, your line of posts here take the focus away from the real issue...Green put himself in the position to be suspended by continuing to play on the edge and a couple of plays that were over the edge imo...and aside from the over the edge plays, I like his edgy personality and game. I also can appreciate those that don't like him for the same reasons.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Probably tonight...lol

Nope. The Prophet speaketh!!!!

 

[trojanfan12]

The problem isn't so much with the point system as it is with how things like the "players history" and "intent" are applied. Vandeweghe said that those things are taken into account, which they should be.

However, they should be taken into account when determining the severity of the punishment, not in determining whether or not to upgrade a foul. Either a foul is a flagrant, or it's not. It shouldn't be a flagrant for one player because he has a "history" and not another player because he doesn't.

If what Green did was a flagrant, then maybe you suspend him 2 or 3 games because of his history where other players might only get 1. But you don't upgrade it to a flagrant because of the players history.

 

[gordontrue]

The problem isn't so much with the point system as it is with how things like the "players history" and "intent" are applied. Vandeweghe said that those things are taken into account, which the should be.

However, they should be taken into account when determining the severity of the punishment, not in determining whether or not to upgrade a foul. Either a foul is a flagrant, or it's not. It shouldn't be a flagrant for one player because he has a "history" and not another player because he doesn't.

If what Green did was a flagrant, then maybe you suspend him 2 or 3 games because of his history where other players might only get 1. But you don't upgrade it to a flagrant because of the players history.

Interesting take. That makes sense to me.

 

[trojanfan12]

Interesting take. That makes sense to me.

Yeah, it struck me when I heard Vandeweghe interviewed. When MWP elbowed Harden, what would have likely been a 1 game suspension for any other player was correctly extended to 3-4 games (I forget the exact number) because of his history.

 

[lebron23james]

 

[Shanemansj13]

View attachment 127845

Well flagrant is unnecessary contact and if you look at those 4 plays and the accuracy of his actions, whether it was a kick or punch, the action looks unnecessary and blatant, in at least 3 of the 4. Just like a play when you are going to the basket, if you accidently hit a players head but swiping the ball you can 90% of the time tell what a players intention was but obviously there will be plays that are controversial. In two of those plays he is actually looking at what he is doing, I don't think his history even needed to be taken into play here.

Here are the guidelines:

1. The severity of the contact;

2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play (e.g., whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot; note, however, that a foul committed during a block attempt can still be considered flagrant if other criteria are present such as recklessness and hard contact to the head);

3. Whether, on a foul committed with a player's arm or hand, the fouling player wound up and/or followed through after making contact;

4. The potential for injury resulting from contact (e.g., a blow to the head and a foul committed while a player is in a vulnerable position);

5. The severity of any injury suffered by the offended player; and

6. The outcome of the contact (e.g., whether it led to an altercation).

I think those 3 bolded were the big 3 reasons on the flagrant being called. And #3 there was even a foul called in the first place but you see the point.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Yeah, it struck me when I heard Vandeweghe interviewed. When MWP elbowed Harden, what would have likely been a 1 game suspension for any other player was correctly extended to 3-4 games (I forget the exact number) because of his history.

It was 7 games, which was stupid because Harden is a known flopper...

 

[ATL96Steeler]

The problem isn't so much with the point system as it is with how things like the "players history" and "intent" are applied. Vandeweghe said that those things are taken into account, which they should be.

However, they should be taken into account when determining the severity of the punishment, not in determining whether or not to upgrade a foul. Either a foul is a flagrant, or it's not. It shouldn't be a flagrant for one player because he has a "history" and not another player because he doesn't.

If what Green did was a flagrant, then maybe you suspend him 2 or 3 games because of his history where other players might only get 1. But you don't upgrade it to a flagrant because of the players history.

My only retort "either a foul is flagrant or it's not"...in some ways a flagrant is like pass int in the NFL...not all are clear cut calls...player A and player B commit the same foul, the play is on the edge of being flagrant and there are many of these throughout the season. Player A has never committed such a foul before, player B has committed 2 or 3 such fouls...I think it's human nature to think player B intended the action whereas player A, you probably are willing to write it off.

 

[WiggyRuss]

View attachment 127845

LOL....dude i think the WORST one might be that upper right one and thats one i havent even seen anyhting about....WTF....this is WEIRD. What is wrong with this guy? I never saw anything like that while he played in the Big 10

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

We cannot have players worried about their groins being under assault with that asshole on the court.

I laughed at this bit.

Funny stuff.

 

[Heatles84]

LOL....dude i think the WORST one might be that upper right one and thats one i havent even seen anyhting about....WTF....this is WEIRD. What is wrong with this guy? I never saw anything like that while he played in the Big 10

The one to Adams was not the most blatant and the worse. The one in the upper right had to hurt a bit though. The one where Adams takes a knee could be argued that it was a basketball play as I've seen plenty of players go knee first.

But yeah, Draymond need to knock it off as it concerns the nut shots.

 

[trojanfan12]

It was 7 games, which was stupid because Harden is a known flopper...

Damn, even longer than I remembered. I agree that Harden is a known flopper. But in that instance, he didn't flop. MWP gave him a concussion with that elbow shot.

 

[trojanfan12]

My only retort "either a foul is flagrant or it's not"...in some ways a flagrant is like pass int in the NFL...not all are clear cut calls...player A and player B commit the same foul, the play is on the edge of being flagrant and there are many of these throughout the season. Player A has never committed such a foul before, player B has committed 2 or 3 such fouls...I think it's human nature to think player B intended the action whereas player A, you probably are willing to write it off.

I understand that in the case of a call on the court, or in the case of your example, a call on the field. But in the Draymond/Lebron incident, the refs called it a double foul on the court. The league reviewed it and then waited 48 hours before changing the call that was made on the court. So, unlike the refs on the court, they had the time to, for lack of a better term, remove human nature from the decision.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Damn, even longer than I remembered. I agree that Harden is a known flopper. But in that instance, he didn't flop. MWP gave him a concussion with that elbow shot.

I swear I don't remember any concussion...Media overreaction perhaps?

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Huh, just found it...Seven games still seems extreme though...Regardless, that's an era of NBA Basketball I certainly won't miss...Nothing but league-wide exaggerated drama and more league-wide exaggerated drama.
http://newsok.com/okc-thunder-james...stom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-thunder
http://newsok.com/okc-thunder-james...stom_click=pod_headline_oklahoma-city-thunder

 

[trojanfan12]

Huh, just found it...Seven games still seems extreme though...Regardless, that's an era of NBA Basketball I certainly won't miss...Nothing but league-wide exaggerated drama and more league-wide exaggerated drama.
OKC Thunder: James Harden faces rigorous evaluation, uncertain return to court after concussion

Yeah, I remembered because at first I thought Harden was exaggerating. But when they showed the shot in slow motion, it was pretty bad. 7 games was probably a bit much, but he had a reputation so they nailed him.

Agree about the drama.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I understand that in the case of a call on the court, or in the case of your example, a call on the field. But in the Draymond/Lebron incident, the refs called it a double foul on the court. The league reviewed it and then waited 48 hours before changing the call that was made on the court. So, unlike the refs on the court, they had the time to, for lack of a better term, remove human nature from the decision.

Gotcha on the Lebron/Drymond, no push back there...my retort was more in general on the "it's either a flagrant or it not".

 

[trojanfan12]

Gotcha on the Lebron/Drymond, no push back there...my retort was more in general on the "it's either a flagrant or it not".

Yeah, I agree that a flagrant call on the field or court can be borderline and influenced by the reputation of the player involved for the refs calling the game. They're job is to keep the game under control and some players can hinder their ability to do that because of their style and would have a "shorter leash" with those refs.

I just think that when it gets to the league office for review, the human nature involved should be able to be removed by simply looking at the act itself. They have the opportunity to say "Would we be upgrading this foul if it were anyone else?"

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Yeah, I agree that a flagrant call on the field or court can be borderline and influenced by the reputation of the player involved for the refs calling the game. They're job is to keep the game under control and some players can hinder their ability to do that because of their style and would have a "shorter leash" with those refs.

I just think that when it gets to the league office for review, the human nature involved should be able to be removed by simply looking at the act itself. They have the opportunity to say "Would we be upgrading this foul if it were anyone else?"

Off topic but within the scope...when Mike Tyson was convicted of r*pe in IND or wherever that was...most people felt he was convicted more on reputation than evidence.

Bringing it back...yeah the cool off period should help the league determine fairly if a foul should be upgraded or not, but the same thing applies...rep...it's hard to entirely separate that from the decision making process...a guy with no priors is most likely getting the benefit of doubt over a player with a few priors.