Arizas cheapshot on Blazer Fernandez

[Reality]

0.8 left on the shot clock, Blazers were leading 83-55 when Ariza felt the need to cheapshot Rudy F.  Maybe Smug Phil ordered it, i dont know.
http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=3770
Video only gives one angle.  Perhaps video with more angles will come out, unless SternLakersMarketing has forbid it.

Lamar Scrotom also said to have left the bench, which would warrant an auto suspension to those not in Perple n Gold undies.

[ziggy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6FoUFsJn2M

It was meant as a hard foul and I don't believe Ariza was trying to hurt him, but there is no question there was some frustration involved.  He hit him in the head first, and then hit him across the arms which is where Fernandez went off balance, before Ariza actually touched the ball.  In my opinion it was excessive, in that situation, and he should get more than an ejection from the game.  If you allow that kind of a play to result in nothing more than a Flagrant 2 then you open the door to a lot of very hard fouls.

As far as Odom, in my opinion he should get a suspension.  He crossed the sideline by 3-4 steps, and was in the fracas.  It is was not a case where he was just looking at the fracas, and maybe slightly stepped over the line or some other borderline kind of thing.  He was far more involved than Amare and Diaw, and they got a suspension.

Look at this video about 20 seconds in, and you can see that Odom was in it with Roy.  That is an automatic suspension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRyq9_7hR4

[westkoast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6FoUFsJn2M

It was meant as a hard foul and I don't believe Ariza was trying to hurt him, but there is no question there was some frustration involved.  He hit him in the head first, and then hit him across the arms which is where Fernandez went off balance, before Ariza actually touched the ball.  In my opinion it was excessive, in that situation, and he should get more than an ejection from the game.  If you allow that kind of a play to result in nothing more than a Flagrant 2 then you open the door to a lot of very hard fouls.

As far as Odom, in my opinion he should get a suspension.  He crossed the sideline by 3-4 steps, and was in the fracas.  It is was not a case where he was just looking at the fracas, and maybe slightly stepped over the line or some other borderline kind of thing.  He was far more involved than Amare and Diaw, and they got a suspension.

Look at this video about 20 seconds in, and you can see that Odom was in it with Roy.  That is an automatic suspension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRyq9_7hR4

Yup and Yup.  Agree with what your saying 100%.

Was busy so I didn't get to see the game but I saw the replay.

[WayOutWest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6FoUFsJn2M

It was meant as a hard foul and I don't believe Ariza was trying to hurt him, but there is no question there was some frustration involved.  He hit him in the head first, and then hit him across the arms which is where Fernandez went off balance, before Ariza actually touched the ball.  In my opinion it was excessive, in that situation, and he should get more than an ejection from the game.  If you allow that kind of a play to result in nothing more than a Flagrant 2 then you open the door to a lot of very hard fouls.

As far as Odom, in my opinion he should get a suspension.  He crossed the sideline by 3-4 steps, and was in the fracas.  It is was not a case where he was just looking at the fracas, and maybe slightly stepped over the line or some other borderline kind of thing.  He was far more involved than Amare and Diaw, and they got a suspension.

Look at this video about 20 seconds in, and you can see that Odom was in it with Roy.  That is an automatic suspension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRyq9_7hR4

Agreed.  While "never say die" is something I really like about Ariza there has to be some "brains" behind that "brawn".  The truth of the matter was the Blazers where closing in on a 30 point lead, Ariza should have just let that one go.  I've seen worse fouls get a one game suspension, IMO Ariza should get no more nor any less.

Lamar Odumb was being his typical self, not thinking and he should get suspended as well.

[ziggy]

Odom got one game, and Ariza got nothing more.  

[Lurker]

Odom got one game, and Ariza got nothing more.  

IMO this is right.

[Joe Vancil]

I have a real problem with the fact that Odom gets suspended one game, but Ariza, who essentially is the focal point of this whole thing, gets nothing.

I think the focal point should always get the maximum suspension - meaning that if Odom gets one game, Ariza must get at least one game.  I think that that would provide an additional deterrent to a player leaving the bench - the potential escalation of the penalty against a teammate.

And there's no question that Odom had to get one game, given the leaving-the-bench rule.

[Lurker]

I have a real problem with the fact that Odom gets suspended one game, but Ariza, who essentially is the focal point of this whole thing, gets nothing.

I think you have to look at the 2 actions separately.  If Odom hadn't left the bench should Ariza have still gotten extra suspension?  Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

And there's no question that Odom had to get one game, given the leaving-the-bench rule.

Agreed...and it had nothing to do with whether Ariza's foul was flagrant or not.

[Skandery]

If the league continues to "mostly" let these sorts of plays (Bynum--Wallace, Ariza--Fernandez) go with slaps on the wrist, I think they will continue.  The savvy teams will know how to use the "right" players at the "right" times to affect advantageous outcomes.


Odom had to get the 1 game b/c of the rule, which I think is still flawed. 

Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

Not really. 

Horry was aggressor, Nash's teammate(s) left bench.
Ariza was aggressor, Ariza's teammate left bench.

Either way I still can't believe this rule is as flawed as it was back then.

[Lurker]

Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

Not really. 

Horry was aggressor, Nash's teammate(s) left bench.
Ariza was aggressor, Ariza's teammate left bench.

Either way I still can't believe this rule is as flawed as it was back then.

Same concept...punish a player (Ariza/Nash) for a teammate's actions.  Ariza had no control over Odom's stupidity so why should he get punished.  Just as Nash had no control over his teammates' stupidity.

[Joe Vancil]

I have a real problem with the fact that Odom gets suspended one game, but Ariza, who essentially is the focal point of this whole thing, gets nothing.

I think you have to look at the 2 actions separately.  If Odom hadn't left the bench should Ariza have still gotten extra suspension?  Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

Wrong analogy, because Nash was not the instigator.  In the case you mention, the instigator, Horry, should get a penalty as harsh as Stoudemire and Diaw....and he did.

[Lurker]

I have a real problem with the fact that Odom gets suspended one game, but Ariza, who essentially is the focal point of this whole thing, gets nothing.

I think you have to look at the 2 actions separately.  If Odom hadn't left the bench should Ariza have still gotten extra suspension?  Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

Wrong analogy, because Nash was not the instigator.  In the case you mention, the instigator, Horry, should get a penalty as harsh as Stoudemire and Diaw....and he did.

I disagree.  Horry was suspended for the hard (cheap ?) foul.  Diaw & Amare got suspended for breaking a different rule.

2 different rules.  One for flagrant/unnecessary fouls.  And one for players leaving the bench.  And the response to one rule should not impact the application of the other.

[Joe Vancil]

Should Nash have been suspended because Diaw & Amare left the bench?  Same concept...

Not really. 

Horry was aggressor, Nash's teammate(s) left bench.
Ariza was aggressor, Ariza's teammate left bench.

Either way I still can't believe this rule is as flawed as it was back then.

Same concept...punish a player (Ariza/Nash) for a teammate's actions.  Ariza had no control over Odom's stupidity so why should he get punished.  Just as Nash had no control over his teammates' stupidity.

Ariza had no control over Odom's stupidity, but the worst action - Ariza's - should always be the most harshly punished.  In this case, Odom was punished more than Ariza was.  What sense does that make?

In committing an offensible action, no player knows what the outcome of such action will be, but they easily understand that an inflammatory action like a flagrant-2 is going to generate SOME reaction.  Understanding that being the instigator will get you the harshest penalty assures you that you know you will in no way benefit from your offensible action;  that is the first step to controlling such actions.

I believe that final outcome affects the size/scope of the penalty.  Two players commit the same flagrant-2 foul...in one case it is let go and no big reaction is generated;  in the other, a bench-clearing brawl erupts.  Are you telling me that both players committing the flagrant foul should be punished the same way?

[WayOutWest]

I believe that final outcome affects the size/scope of the penalty.  Two players commit the same flagrant-2 foul...in one case it is let go and no big reaction is generated;  in the other, a bench-clearing brawl erupts.  Are you telling me that both players committing the flagrant foul should be punished the same way?

Yes, absoflogginglutely YES!

You must have got same bad seal meat Joe.  As Lurker already stated, you cannot punish a player because this team mates acted stupid.

[Lurker]

Same concept...punish a player (Ariza/Nash) for a teammate's actions.  Ariza had no control over Odom's stupidity so why should he get punished.  Just as Nash had no control over his teammates' stupidity.

Ariza had no control over Odom's stupidity, but the worst action - Ariza's - should always be the most harshly punished.  In this case, Odom was punished more than Ariza was.  What sense does that make?

In committing an offensible action, no player knows what the outcome of such action will be, but they easily understand that an inflammatory action like a flagrant-2 is going to generate SOME reaction.  Understanding that being the instigator will get you the harshest penalty assures you that you know you will in no way benefit from your offensible action;  that is the first step to controlling such actions.

I believe that final outcome affects the size/scope of the penalty.  Two players commit the same flagrant-2 foul...in one case it is let go and no big reaction is generated;  in the other, a bench-clearing brawl erupts.  Are you telling me that both players committing the flagrant foul should be punished the same way?

In this case I would say Odom's action was worse.  Ariza's happened in the course of a game and I don't believe he was weighing the odds of his going for the ball would hit Rudy in the head first.  Things happened to fast for that level of decision making on the court.  Would you, as a coach, rather have seen your player poull up and concede a layup?

Odom leaving the bench could ESCALATE the situation to a brawl.  That is the reason for the stay on the bench rule...to avoid another brawl.  If Rudy had jumped right back up and Odom still left the bench to confront a Blazer player should Odom have been given only a slap on the wrist?  He broke the rule but no harm, no foul?  What if in confronting the Blazer a brawl had started...even with Rudy jumping right up showing no ill effects...should Odom get off scott free?

Two rules, Joe.  Two different punishments.  Unless you think that all rules should have the same punishment.  Maybe breaking the travelling rule should be punished the same as breaking the rule about going into the stands.