Was Wallace overreacting?!

[westkoast]

The poll would like to hear from you!

[Joe Vancil]

Of course Wallace was over-reacting.

The foul committed on Wallace is one that a person who plays basketball will recognize as a dangerous foul, and it should have been called as such (which it wasn't).  HOWEVER, that doesn't give a player the right to pop another player.

YES, it was over-reacting.  And YES, I would have done the same thing as Wallace.  The "proper" course of action in such a circumstance is exactly what Wallace did - all the way through to accepting his (well-deserved) suspension.

A push from behind while in motion is a dangerous foul - probably the most dangerous common foul.  Shawn Bradley has made a living off of this kind of stuff, which is one of the reasons I always single him out among "dirtiest players."  On a play like this, you're looking at a knee being blown out if the player doesn't recover from the push well.



 

[westkoast]

Of course Wallace was over-reacting.

The foul committed on Wallace is one that a person who plays basketball will recognize as a dangerous foul, and it should have been called as such (which it wasn't).  HOWEVER, that doesn't give a player the right to pop another player.

YES, it was over-reacting.  And YES, I would have done the same thing as Wallace.  The "proper" course of action in such a circumstance is exactly what Wallace did - all the way through to accepting his (well-deserved) suspension.

A push from behind while in motion is a dangerous foul - probably the most dangerous common foul.  Shawn Bradley has made a living off of this kind of stuff, which is one of the reasons I always single him out among "dirtiest players."  On a play like this, you're looking at a knee being blown out if the player doesn't recover from the push well.

He didnt push him from behind...he hit his arm(s)  to prevent him from getting the lay up.  Artest jumped too, it wasnt just a cheap push from behind.  In fact it was the exact opposite, it was a NORMAL play that defenders make when players go for easy hoops.   Wouldnt be any different than any of the other fouls in that game, especially the one Wallace made on Artest one play before.

What I dont get is fans love to complain (myself included) that players dont play the full 48 minutes no matter what.  Then will turn around and say 'Why did Artest not let him just get the easy layup, they were up 12 with a few minutes to go'.  He was playing hard and like he would if there was 40 minutes left in the game.  I complain about players not playing hard like its the middle of the 3rd quarter at the end of the game, but I dont fault Artest for doing what he would in that situation.  That's what you are told to do.  Make em earn it.

[Lurker]

All depends on how you see the play.....from SI.com

First, let's look at the play that set things in motion. With the Pacers holding a commanding 15-point lead with less than a minute to go, Pistons center Ben Wallace took the ball to the basket for what clearly was nothing more than a garbage-time bucket. Even Wallace's initial defender, Stephen Jackson, recognized the insignificance of Wallace scoring and stepped back, preferring to give up the score in exchange for regaining possession.

But once again, Ron Artest interjected himself into a play that had no bearing on the outcome of the game, fouling Wallace from behind as he went up for the lay-up. I listened to ESPN analysts last night talk about how Artest's foul wasn't of the flagrant variety, but that's hardly the point. At no time during that possession did Artest make any kind of play on the basketball. What he did was purposefully shove Wallace in the back and take a swipe with his off hand at the back of his head.

Also no one mentions that on the previous possession Artest took it to the hoop & Wallace blocked his shot.  Artest thought he was fouled but no whistle (common enough in the NBA).  Was Artest retaliating for the lack of whistle on the other end?

[westkoast]

All depends on how you see the play.....from SI.com

First, let's look at the play that set things in motion. With the Pacers holding a commanding 15-point lead with less than a minute to go, Pistons center Ben Wallace took the ball to the basket for what clearly was nothing more than a garbage-time bucket. Even Wallace's initial defender, Stephen Jackson, recognized the insignificance of Wallace scoring and stepped back, preferring to give up the score in exchange for regaining possession.

But once again, Ron Artest interjected himself into a play that had no bearing on the outcome of the game, fouling Wallace from behind as he went up for the lay-up. I listened to ESPN analysts last night talk about how Artest's foul wasn't of the flagrant variety, but that's hardly the point. At no time during that possession did Artest make any kind of play on the basketball. What he did was purposefully shove Wallace in the back and take a swipe with his off hand at the back of his head.

Also no one mentions that on the previous possession Artest took it to the hoop & Wallace blocked his shot.  Artest thought he was fouled but no whistle (common enough in the NBA).  Was Artest retaliating for the lack of whistle on the other end?

I mentioned it in my post above.  Wallace fouled Artest on the trip before but there was a no call.  Wallace did exactly what Artest did, make the player hit a tough shot with contact or let the ref blow the whistle and send em to the stripe to earn it.

Again...with all this talk from NBA fans about players not playing hard till the zero's come up, why is Artest frowned upon for making a normal foul on Wallace to keep him from making an easy basket?

[Joe Vancil]

Artest's foul was *NOT* a "normal foul."  A push from behind when a player is in motion is DANGEROUS.  Whether or not the foul was called a flagrant, there's no doubt in my mind that it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

I have not seen Wallace's foul on Artest, however, if Artest had a problem with it, he should have done what Wallace did a play later.  While I don't like to condone violence, even I recognize that there's a fine line that is walked in sporting events when officials don't appropriately make calls.  Like it or not, responses to flagrant fouls are a part of the game.  The smartest understand when to walk away - like Garnett did with Anthony Peeler last year.  But if you believe Peeler won't catch an elbow from Garnett during this season if the opportunity presents itself, you're kidding yourself.
 

[westkoast]

Artest's foul was *NOT* a "normal foul."  A push from behind when a player is in motion is DANGEROUS.  Whether or not the foul was called a flagrant, there's no doubt in my mind that it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

I have not seen Wallace's foul on Artest, however, if Artest had a problem with it, he should have done what Wallace did a play later.  While I don't like to condone violence, even I recognize that there's a fine line that is walked in sporting events when officials don't appropriately make calls.  Like it or not, responses to flagrant fouls are a part of the game.  The smartest understand when to walk away - like Garnett did with Anthony Peeler last year.  But if you believe Peeler won't catch an elbow from Garnett during this season if the opportunity presents itself, you're kidding yourself.

Joe how could he shove him from behind when Artest was up in the air?  You cannot shove someone if your feet are not planted.  Artest challenged Wallace, like Wallace did to him a play before, but since Artest could not make a clean block he commited a foul.  Every big man does this.  ALL of em.  Someone's frustration about the game and maybe just a chip on his shoulder from the problems he is having off the court made it worse than it was.  Ive seen Wallace foul players harder than he was fouled.

Are you calling Artest smart?  Because he walked away from the fight with Wallace over the foul.  If Artest was really that pissed at Ben he would have faught Ben.

[Guest]

wallace is a beyotch.  even he himself says he overreacted, he even tried to contact artest after wards to apologize.  oh well.