Ariza won't be suspended, Odom still being reviewed

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Odom may not be suspended since he never went onto the court. He was still out of bounds when he took a few steps off the bench.

Lakers play Houston next, we need Houston to lose. Dont suspend Odom! :)
 
BeerBoy said:
Odom may not be suspended since he never went onto the court. He was still out of bounds when he took a few steps off the bench.

Lakers play Houston next, we need Houston to lose. Dont suspend Odom! :)
Click to expand...

Honestly have you seen how much of a dipwit Odom is? If you want Lakers to win.. suspend Odom. Guy takes more away from them than he adds about 3/4 of the time.
 
not surprised, to me Ariza went for the ball. refs did the right thing to eject him though as they could argue at the time it seemed like a flagrant II...the building would have been a madhouse had he not gotten ejected. the bynum shot to crash was more intentful IMO and he didn't get suspended i think.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
not surprised, to me Ariza went for the ball. refs did the right thing to eject him though as they could argue at the time it seemed like a flagrant II...the building would have been a madhouse had he not gotten ejected. the bynum shot to crash was more intentful IMO and he didn't get suspended i think.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% I dont think Ariza intended to hurt Rudy at all.. but it was about keeping order.. the teams would have come together again I think they didnt take control of the game.
 
Regardless of if you are "make an aggressive play for the ball" if you put a guy on a stretcher you deserve to go take an early shower.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
not surprised, to me Ariza went for the ball. refs did the right thing to eject him though as they could argue at the time it seemed like a flagrant II...the building would have been a madhouse had he not gotten ejected. the bynum shot to crash was more intentful IMO and he didn't get suspended i think.
Click to expand...

He was nowhere near the ball, unless he thought that (A) Rudy shoots the ball with his head, or (B) Rudy doesn't have a head.

Typical Laker-loving by the NBA. Of well, Ariza's still a douche.
 
It's funny. We get all bent out of shape when basketball players fight, yet everyone's cheering and high-fivin' rooting players on in a hockey brawl :D
 
To be fair, Odom was actually playing peace-maker when he did get involved, so I don't really see the need for a suspension in his case.

BTW, did anyone see Kurt Rambis throw one of the ball boys out of the way to get into the melee? Literally picked him up and tossed him.
 
BlazerBeav said:
To be fair, Odom was actually playing peace-maker when he did get involved, so I don't really see the need for a suspension in his case.

BTW, did anyone see Kurt Rambis throw one of the ball boys out of the way to get into the melee? Literally picked him up and tossed him.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure I saw Odom in Roy's face in the highlights.. I could be wrong though, but I thought thats what I saw.
 
blue32 said:
It's funny. We get all bent out of shape when basketball players fight, yet everyone's cheering and high-fivin' rooting players on in a hockey brawl :D
Click to expand...

Michael Ruffin would be a hero in Portland had he left the bench, ran across the court, and clocked DB Ariza one-on-one. Nobody in hockey cheers cheap shots, just like, with the apparent exception of Laker fans and their forum poll condoning the foul, fans in the NBA don't cheer cheapshots either.
 
BlazerBeav said:
To be fair, Odom was actually playing peace-maker when he did get involved, so I don't really see the need for a suspension in his case.

BTW, did anyone see Kurt Rambis throw one of the ball boys out of the way to get into the melee? Literally picked him up and tossed him.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Odom must be teaching Ariza how to be a douche bag.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
free_lafrentz said:
Regardless of if you are "make an aggressive play for the ball" if you put a guy on a stretcher you deserve to go take an early shower.
Click to expand...

I don't think thats true. I saw a kid once get blocked and when he landed he snapped his Tibia and Fibula in his leg, and had a compound fracture. All the other kid do was just block his shot. There are exceptions.
 
PapaG said:
Michael Ruffin would be a hero in Portland had he left the bench, ran across the court, and clocked DB Ariza one-on-one. Nobody in hockey cheers cheap shots, just like, with the apparent exception of Laker fans and their forum poll condoning the foul, fans in the NBA don't cheer cheapshots either.
Click to expand...


Wasn't talking about the cheap shots. I'm talking about the fighting stigma as a whole. It's just odd. I know I'm comparing apples to oranges in regards to the sports, but the idea that it's okay to do it in hockey, but not in basketball from the fans, press, etc is funny to say the least.
 
BlazerBeav said:
To be fair, Odom was actually playing peace-maker when he did get involved, so I don't really see the need for a suspension in his case.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. I remember a game back in the 90s when Strickland got into a fight with another player, Clyde jumped off the bench to pull Strick back and got suspended. Leave the bench, get suspended. Rule makes no exceptions (unless maybe an exception for a Laker).
 
BrianWheeler said:
Agree 100% I dont think Ariza intended to hurt Rudy at all..
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant. The rule on flagrant fouls doesn't consider intent. Ariza committed a reckless, dangerous act that put another player at risk for serious injury. He deserves to be suspended at least one game for his actions - not his intent.

This is bullshit. How is this any different than Al Horford taking down TJ Ford from behind last season? It's not. Horford was not trying to injure Ford, he was visibly shaken after the play and truly remorseful (spent several hours atthe hospital at Ford's bedside), but he was still suspended one game. Why? Because he committed a dangerous act that put another player at risk for a serious injury.

The fact that Ariza did the same thing (take down a player from behind after he had left his feet) means he should get the same treatment as Horford - one game suspension.

BNM
 
BlazerBeav said:
To be fair, Odom was actually playing peace-maker when he did get involved, so I don't really see the need for a suspension in his case.

BTW, did anyone see Kurt Rambis throw one of the ball boys out of the way to get into the melee? Literally picked him up and tossed him.
Click to expand...

No, Odom was talkin' junk to Roy.

No, didnt see the ball boy get tossed. That would be kinda funny to see.
 
What I miss hearing is how long a suspension Rudy is going to get for fouling Ariza's hand with his head...

At the end of the day - I do not think it was a bad decision from the league.

Ariza got a f-2 as he should have - no real reason to get bent out of shape about the suspension.

Glad Rudy's injuries are not worse and I am sure the Blazers will remember and make the Lakers their bitches again in April - and if the Lakers are lucky enough to get out of the first round - in May :D
 
Last edited:
[dumbass laker fan]didn't you get the memo, Rudy flopped so he could pull a Paulina Pierce and come back to the court. he was chuckling it up in the locker room at his strategy and it was a drawn play [/dumbass laker fan]
 
I guess it will take someone to get seriously hurt on a play like this for the NBA to change it's tune. I guarantee that if it would have been Kobe who went down, broke his neck and was paralyzed for life.........there would have been a suspension. The fact Rudy did not get hurt was irrelevant.

But on the flip side I guess if Greg took a full swipe at Kobe while he was driving to the basket, accidently crushing his skull with his forearm,(while going for the ball) I would be pissed if Greg got suspended. So it works both ways.

Get healthy Greg and take some "hard" fouls!
 
andalusian said:
At the end of the day - I do not think it was a bad decision from the league.

Ariza got a f-2 as he should have - no real reason to get bent out of shape about the suspension.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's an extremely inconsistent application of the rule by the league office. Al Horford did the EXACT same thing to TJ Ford (took him down from behind with a blow to the head) and got a one game suspension. Therefore, if the rule is applied consistently, Ariza should receive the exact same penalty.

The extent of Rudy's injuries should be irrelevant. The point of the rule and subsequent suspension is to send a clear message - you don't commit a dangerous act that puts another player at risk for serious injury. Unfortunately, by not suspending Ariza, the application of the rule becomes murky and unclear. Sometimes, it's OK to take a player down from behind, other times it's not? So, go ahead and hit a guy from behind after he's left his feet and take your chances that you might not get suspended? All that does is encourage more dangerous plays of this type.

If the NBA is serious about protecting it's players from "unecessary and excessive" contact that could lead to an injury, they need to apply the rule and hand out the punishment equally - in ALL cases.

I know we'll never get one, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation from the league about why Horfard was suspended for his act, but Ariza wasn't.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
I disagree. It's an extremely inconsistent application of the rule by the league office. Al Horford did the EXACT same thing to TJ Ford (took him down from behind with a blow to the head) and got a one game suspension. Therefore, if the rule is applied consistently, Ariza should receive the exact same penalty.

The extent of Rudy's injuries should be irrelevant. The point of the rule and subsequent suspension is to send a clear message - you don't commit a dangerous act that puts another player at risk for serious injury. Unfortunately, by not suspending Ariza, the application of the rule becomes murky and unclear. Sometimes, it's OK to take a player down from behind, other times it's not? So, go ahead and hit a guy from behind after he's left his feet and take your chances that you might not get suspended? All that does is encourage more dangerous plays of this type.

If the NBA is serious about protecting it's players from "unecessary and excessive" contact that could lead to an injury, they need to apply the rule and hand out the punishment equally - in ALL cases.

I know we'll never get one, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation from the league about why Horfard was suspended for his act, but Ariza wasn't.

BNM
Click to expand...


I think we all know the answer to that one, BNM.
 
Boob-No-More said:
I know we'll never get one, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation from the league about why Horfard was suspended for his act, but Ariza wasn't.
Click to expand...

I obviously do not know why the league made the decision they made - but I can speculate that in Al Horford's case he was not even close to the ball - where Ariza if he did not graze the ball was pretty close to it.

Stupid move, no doubt, the F-2 was automatic - but after that - could care less about the suspension if he got it or not - does not change anything as far as the Blazers or Rudy are concerned. If the league decides there was an intent to play on the ball and he had come somewhat close to it - that's fine with me.

I just do not have the hate in me to really care over that. All I want to know is that he was out of the game against the Blazers, Rudy is OK and the Blazers will remember it next time they see the Lakers.
 
andalusian said:
I obviously do not know why the league made the decision they made - but I can speculate that in Al Horford's case he was not even close to the ball - where Ariza if he did not graze the ball was pretty close to it.

Stupid move, no doubt, the F-2 was automatic - but after that - could care less about the suspension if he got it or not - does not change anything as far as the Blazers or Rudy are concerned. If the league decides there was an intent to play on the ball and he had come somewhat close to it - that's fine with me.

I just do not have the hate in me to really care over that. All I want to know is that he was out of the game against the Blazers, Rudy is OK and the Blazers will remember it next time they see the Lakers.
Click to expand...

Again, intent isn't mentioned anywhere in the rule. It's irrelevant. It's the action that warrants the penalty. Ariza's action was the same as Horford's - he took a player down, who had left his feet, from behind with a blow to the head. I don't see how that is even open to interpretation. The penalty shoud be the same in both cases.

There is nothing about hate in my response. It's a legitimate question regardless of what team I cheer for. Why wasn't the penalty the same for Ariza as it was for Horford. If there is a legitimate reason, I'd like to hear it. That's all. No hate. Just a question. I'm concerned that if Ariza isn't suspended it sends a message that it's OK - SOMETIMES to put a player at risk for injury by taking him down from behind.

That kind of mixed message could lead to a serious injury down the road and should be avoided. The NBA had a great opportunity here to reinforce it's stance that if you put another player at risk of serious injury, due to "unecessary and excessive" contact, you WILL be suspended, regardless of intent. By not suspending Ariza, they blew that opportunity and opened the door for more fouls of this type. That's bad for the players and bad for the league, no matter what team you support.

BNM
 
The intent has nothing to do with the F-2 - but with what he was trying to do and how close he was to making it. My guess is that the league considered Ariza's play a much smaller error in judgment than Horford's because he actually did graze the ball - where Horford was not even close.

Again - I have no clue why - I am speculating.

Was it a bad idea? Sure. Did he deserve the F-2? No doubt. Do I care if he gets a suspension or not? No - not really - because as I said - if he was half a step quicker - it could have been a clean block. There is an issue with a margin of error - and Ariza's margin of error was a lot smaller than Horford's - that's just what I think caused them to considered it a "just one of the things that happen" and the F-2 being good enough.

Intent should have nothing to do with a F-2 - but should have everything with further suspension. Both Horford and Ariza did not, in my opinion have intent to harm the opposing player. Horford's play however was just hopeless in achieving any contact with the ball - where Ariza's was dumb - but not completely hopeless.
 
Boob-No-More said:
I know we'll never get one, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation from the league about why Horfard was suspended for his act, but Ariza wasn't.

BNM
Click to expand...

You don't need to hear one; you already know why. Horford is a Hawk and Ariza wears the Purple & Piss. The rules are different if you are a member of a glory franchise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top