Author Topic: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.  (Read 9769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2015, 09:37:32 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Do you really believe they dont look for intent? honestly?

Can you describe how you'd establish "intent" in a way that's not already covered by those criteria (like whether the player was making a basketball play)? 

Because yes, I do think they dropped the term "intent" very deliberately, for the reasons I've been describing.  It turns very quickly into highly biased "mind-reading" - again, read any fan analysis of this or any other controversial foul and try to count how many people know exactly what everyone involved was thinking, and how many of those telepaths are directly contradicting each other.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2015, 09:39:07 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
Lame, and it screams double standard.

KO obviously shouldn't have been suspended, but since he was, Perk should have received at least the same punishment.

See, I don't think the double standard at hand is with Perk, I think it's with Love and the arm pulling.

Perk's double standard has been standardized by the hundreds of guys before him who have been suspended/ejected. 
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2015, 09:47:49 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
And from what I saw (hope someone can back this up) the refs blew the whistle at Perk immediately after the initial illegal screen whistle for taunting Crowder.

Crowder didn't get up and start yelling back until after Perk taunted him.

Which apparently means Perk completely got away with no tech for reaching out and touching Crowder's face, assuming you believe that first whistle was a tech for taunting (which was for some reason subsequently changed to a double tech).
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2015, 09:48:59 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
What a joke.  Personally, I was wondering why it was taking the league so long to suspend Smith, and now I know why.

Smith should be kicked out of the league. How many times does this guy do stupid things like this?

And then he says, I shouldn't have done it, I should of known better. The dummy didn't even say sorry to Crowder

I agree, but can we also kick Perk out of the league, too?

no. Perk is Perk. Crowder should of launched a punch first.

What Perk did was wrong, but why was Crowder getting up in his face? Just to cuss him down? That is a sign, you are ready to punch or whatever. Crowder should of punched or pushed him first.   Or walk away

So that makes it okay? ::) Crowder probably got in Perk's face because he was upset at the severity of the pick itself, and Perk made his intentions clear when he pushed Jae down and then pointed at him.  That's a bush league move, imo.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2015, 10:24:53 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Do you really believe they dont look for intent? honestly?

Can you describe how you'd establish "intent" in a way that's not already covered by those criteria (like whether the player was making a basketball play)? 

Because yes, I do think they dropped the term "intent" very deliberately, for the reasons I've been describing.  It turns very quickly into highly biased "mind-reading" - again, read any fan analysis of this or any other controversial foul and try to count how many people know exactly what everyone involved was thinking, and how many of those telepaths are directly contradicting each other.
They cut the word for those reasons you outlined but I believe that they left the high level of vagueness so that they could still go based largely off intent without claiming to be mind readers.

However thats just my belief the evidence is pretty solidly backing you up.

You could write a book about how intent isnt used I still think that the first thing the league office does when they look at these is always going to be "was he trying to hurt him?"
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2015, 10:31:12 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
Do you really believe they dont look for intent? honestly?

I think they do but they treat stars differently.   Love started the wrestling and KO finished it.  But yet Love is completely not charged for holding Kelly's arm and instigating the whole matter.   A lot of times they get the retaliator and not the instigator in basketball.

I think those refs ought to be fined for letting it get out of hand.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2015, 12:06:10 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Do you really believe they dont look for intent? honestly?

Can you describe how you'd establish "intent" in a way that's not already covered by those criteria (like whether the player was making a basketball play)? 

Because yes, I do think they dropped the term "intent" very deliberately, for the reasons I've been describing.  It turns very quickly into highly biased "mind-reading" - again, read any fan analysis of this or any other controversial foul and try to count how many people know exactly what everyone involved was thinking, and how many of those telepaths are directly contradicting each other.
They cut the word for those reasons you outlined but I believe that they left the high level of vagueness so that they could still go based largely off intent without claiming to be mind readers.

However thats just my belief the evidence is pretty solidly backing you up.

You could write a book about how intent isnt used I still think that the first thing the league office does when they look at these is always going to be "was he trying to hurt him?"

Sure, I wouldn't say that whoever makes these judgments isn't thinking about that sort of thing, but that's mostly covered by the "making a basketball play" and "following through" sort of stuff.  They're trying to minimize the subjective part of it, and intent is really subjective.

More importantly, I think if the league believed Olynyk tried to injure Love, then 1 game isn't nearly enough for that.  I think if the league determined he didn't try to hurt Love, but did make a reckless, dangerous play that injured him, that 1 game would be about right for a first offender. 

The Cavs penalties I'm not happy with, I'm just saying it makes sense under the rules to suspend Olynyk a game.  Would the league have looked the other way if a superstar who was still in the playoffs did it?  Maybe, maybe not.  The league sometimes seems very "strategic" in how it applies these rules.  But that wasn't an everyday arm hold, it wasn't dirty but it was dangerous and wound up causing a major injury, and 1 game for that kind of action is fine with me.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2015, 12:29:40 AM »

Offline jeezem

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 90
  • Tommy Points: 11
I bet the players union has a big effect on the penalties.  If they could and really wanted to make the injury producing plays go away, they would be handing out 10 and 15 game suspensions like MLB.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2015, 01:23:47 AM »

Online jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47893
  • Tommy Points: 2906
Barkley went off on another rant about the KO suspension tonight. He showed a clip of Green and Batum in the Portland game doing the exact same thing as KO and Love, and he basically said that the NBA was dead wrong, the Cavs overreacted, and people who are saying he did it intentionally have no idea what the hell they're takking about.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2015, 01:36:23 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I bet the players union has a big effect on the penalties.  If they could and really wanted to make the injury producing plays go away, they would be handing out 10 and 15 game suspensions like MLB.

Or just calling the fouls as they come, so that the games never get this physical in the first place.

Ever since game one (when Mozgov steamrolled Zeller in the most obvious offensive foul in history, and no foul was called) the tone of this series had clearly been set.  The message from the officials was that we aren't going to protect you with the whistle - if you want the win, you're going to have to go out and fight for it.  Both teams did, the tempers flared as the game went on, and we all saw the end result. 

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2015, 02:28:09 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
The KO suspension is a moot point to me. It's silly, it doesn't fit with current and murky  definitions of intent, and seems to have been reactive based on who we were playing. That's fine. Silly, but in the end, it won't make a difference.

I am bothered by the penalty to JR, and lack thereof, for Perk. One could argue Perk's action was also somewhat of a moot point... but had he not gotten away with that, would JR have even attempted his felony? I'd think not...

And JR's egregious, disgusting, non-basketball play should have been severely penalized. Setting contextual factors aside, that was the worst non-bball play I've seen since Artest's elbow on Harden. To let that slide, especially after he openly admitted he had done wrong, and in light of his history... is just disgusting to me. My desire to watch the rest of the playoffs has sizzled down to nothing more than optimism that CLE will be exited by a WC team in humiliating fashion.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2015, 03:05:45 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
My biggest problem with the Olynyk suspension is that I genuinely think (based on past history) that if Kevin Love didn't get injured in the play, there would have been absolutely no repercussions beyond a simple personal foul.

Why does that concern me?

Because in theory a Flagrant Foul is supposed to be a penalty for a play that was un-sportsman, unnecessarily aggressive, or made with malicious intent.  Ultimately all of the definitions that separate a flagrant foul from are regular one based on the action itself - not the repercussion.

Theoretically speaking a flagrant foul should be called the same way regardless of whether a player is injured as a result of the play or not.  If I punch you and you only get a bruise, or if I punch you and break your nose, that doesn't change the fact that I punched you - which is an unacceptable and unsportsmanlike act.  Likewise if I dive for the ball and you trip over me and fall, then that's a basketball play and so by definition it's not a flagrant foul - whether you tear an ACL from that fall or whether you get up unhurt shouldn't have a bearing on that call.

So that right there is what has me frustrated.  Plays similar to what KO did happen every day in the NBA, usually more than once a night.  Nobody every gets seriously hurt as a result of it, and so they are never called as flagrant fouls.  On this night KO does the same type of thing, a star player ends up getting hurt as a result, and so they suspend Olynyk (the equivalent of giving him a flagrant 2). 

How is that justifiable?

When Perkins did his excessive foul on Crowder, if Crowder had fallen and torn his ACL on that play, would the league then have issued Perkins with a Flagrant 2 and suspended him?  Probably. 

Personally, I don't understand the message that the NBA is sending out with this nature of officiating.  They are basically telling guys that it doesn't matter if you make dirty plays or not, we're really only going to call a flagrant foul if somebody goes flying to the ground, or if somebody gets seriously injured.  If you want to perform unsportsmanlike fouls on somebody that's fine, just make sure they don't fall or get injured from it and we'll let it go.

Makes no sense to me.   

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2015, 03:09:07 AM »

Offline iadera

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 959
  • Tommy Points: 74
  • CroCeltics
The KO suspension is a joke. Either there was intent to injure, which requires way more than one game, or there wasn't. If there wasn't, you can't suspend.

This is suspect, especially when Perk gets nothing for pushing Crowder in the face.

This 100% over and over.  KO's suspension is a complete joke.  Could it be that Love's post game rant had anything to do with it?  Total bs either way.  This is really idiotic.

Considering ref's decision it is a joke, because they did't called flagrant foul. But it is obvious they should have called flagrant and then the suspension would be correct.

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2015, 03:17:04 AM »

Offline iadera

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 959
  • Tommy Points: 74
  • CroCeltics
My biggest problem with the Olynyk suspension is that I genuinely think (based on past history) that if Kevin Love didn't get injured in the play, there would have been absolutely no repercussions beyond a simple personal foul.

Why does that concern me?

Because in theory a Flagrant Foul is supposed to be a penalty for a play that was un-sportsman, unnecessarily aggressive, or made with malicious intent.  Ultimately all of the definitions that separate a flagrant foul from are regular one based on the action itself - not the repercussion.

Theoretically speaking a flagrant foul should be called the same way regardless of whether a player is injured as a result of the play or not.  If I punch you and you only get a bruise, or if I punch you and break your nose, that doesn't change the fact that I punched you - which is an unacceptable and unsportsmanlike act.  Likewise if I dive for the ball and you trip over me and fall, then that's a basketball play and so by definition it's not a flagrant foul - whether you tear an ACL from that fall or whether you get up unhurt shouldn't have a bearing on that call.

So that right there is what has me frustrated.  Plays similar to what KO did happen every day in the NBA, usually more than once a night.  Nobody every gets seriously hurt as a result of it, and so they are never called as flagrant fouls.  On this night KO does the same type of thing, a star player ends up getting hurt as a result, and so they suspend Olynyk (the equivalent of giving him a flagrant 2). 

How is that justifiable?

When Perkins did his excessive foul on Crowder, if Crowder had fallen and torn his ACL on that play, would the league then have issued Perkins with a Flagrant 2 and suspended him?  Probably. 

Personally, I don't understand the message that the NBA is sending out with this nature of officiating.  They are basically telling guys that it doesn't matter if you make dirty plays or not, we're really only going to call a flagrant foul if somebody goes flying to the ground, or if somebody gets seriously injured.  If you want to perform unsportsmanlike fouls on somebody that's fine, just make sure they don't fall or get injured from it and we'll let it go.

Makes no sense to me.


I must disagree. The consequences always affect to the size of the fine. If you try to kill someone, your fine will be way different if the victim survives than in situatition if he dies. The intention stays the same, but the fine cannot be the same in both cases. It is maybe a brutal example, but still...

Re: Olynyk and Smith suspended, Perkins fined.
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2015, 04:25:43 AM »

Offline Drucci

  • Global Moderator
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7223
  • Tommy Points: 439
The Olynyk suspension screams "makeup suspension", Smith should have been suspended more than two games, and Perkins get at least one.