Kapak, you're so right. Anyone that thinks the Mavs will be better off without Dirk is severely brain-damaged. As you said so accurately, "There is no valid argument otherwise."
[Pootie: this thread was about Dirk getting suspended. I humored your weird attempt to bring something completely irrelevant in and answered it, and yep your view is still nonsense. But that's enough sidetracking.
If you want to discuss that issue again, it doesn't belong in this forum because it wasn't even a discussion here.
To discuss it more, go back to the GS board and bump that thread where it was discussed (and where everyone knew you were wrong and told you so). That way, the discussion will be where it always was, with the same participants. And of course we will see what you actually said, not what you are now CLAIMING to have said, and discuss the actual issues and see whether you were right (for once) or wrong (as usual). But this is the wrong place for you to try to insert your lunacy and derail an interesting discussion. I answered your nonsense-as-usual, and now it's done for these boards.]
Dirk Suspended
Moderators: Dirk, HMFFL, Mavrelous
-
dirkforpres
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,020
- And1: 7,967
- Joined: Sep 13, 2005
-
-
JES12
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,862
- And1: 128
- Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Maybe he did not want people calling him soft anymore. Since the tasn thing didn't work and he is afraid if the tatoo neddle, flagrants are is only recourse.CITYOFANGELSX3 wrote:Whats up with dirks hard fouling lately? I remember sunday he did a foul that easily could of been flagrant, then the next game against the jazz he hard fouls kirilenko?
Dirk, soft? You better watch out or he will closeline you too!
-
Pootie41
- Banned User
- Posts: 377
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 27, 2007
FGump wrote:Kapak, you're so right. Anyone that thinks the Mavs will be better off without Dirk is severely brain-damaged. As you said so accurately, "There is no valid argument otherwise."
[Pootie: this thread was about Dirk getting suspended. I humored your weird attempt to bring something completely irrelevant in and answered it, and yep your view is still nonsense. But that's enough sidetracking.
If you want to discuss that issue again, it doesn't belong in this forum because it wasn't even a discussion here.
To discuss it more, go back to the GS board and bump that thread where it was discussed (and where everyone knew you were wrong and told you so). That way, the discussion will be where it always was, with the same participants. And of course we will see what you actually said, not what you are now CLAIMING to have said, and discuss the actual issues and see whether you were right (for once) or wrong (as usual). But this is the wrong place for you to try to insert your lunacy and derail an interesting discussion. I answered your nonsense-as-usual, and now it's done for these boards.]
There's nothing more to discuss. You've been proven wrong. You were proven wrong from the beginning. A journalist even told you the same thing.
-
JES12
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,862
- And1: 128
- Joined: Jul 05, 2006
catalyst wrote:It was deserved. Just a shame when this team needs a win over a playoff team that this has to come down.
Houston is without Yao and still winning. Now we will be on a level playing field. Maybe the Mavs can gel as a group knowing they have to do it without Dirk...for Dirk.
Also, this whole suspesion was planned by Tmac when he spouted out about the foul...he was lobbying to get Dirk out of this game so the Rox will have a better chance of winning.
-
Pootie41
- Banned User
- Posts: 377
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 27, 2007
sosafan70 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Again you make a good point about isolation. Avery must have hated that he drew up a play for Dirk to throw it in to Jason Kidd who dished it off to Dirk to tie the game against the Lakers in regulation.
a desperation 3 with Odom in his face.. that's the best he could do with jason Kidd?
If Dirk isn't 7 feet with th highest jumper in the NBA that never flies.
And Avery does the same play again and when Dirk misses that shot to go to second over time it's his fault.
-
tosweet68
- Sophomore
- Posts: 182
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jul 28, 2006
JES12 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Houston is without Yao and still winning. Now we will be on a level playing field. Maybe the Mavs can gel as a group knowing they have to do it without Dirk...for Dirk.
Also, this whole suspesion was planned by Tmac when he spouted out about the foul...he was lobbying to get Dirk out of this game so the Rox will have a better chance of winning.
I really hope that none of you believe that Dirk getting suspended honestly had anything to do with TMac. I guarantee that the NBA was looking into this whether TMac made a comment or not.
-
studcrackers
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 52,226
- And1: 6,100
- Joined: Oct 31, 2004
- Location: Getting hit in the head
-
tosweet68 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
I really hope that none of you believe that Dirk getting suspended honestly had anything to do with TMac. I guarantee that the NBA was looking into this whether TMac made a comment or not.
while i do agree with this i was wondering if anything would happen since it took 2 days to make a ruling.
i dont agree with the suspension from the point where 10 or 15 years ago this isnt a suspension, but since stern sprouted a vagina at the turn of the century it had to be a suspension given the current standards for suspensions.
Jugs wrote: I saw two buttholes
-
SaintofKillers
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,001
- And1: 506
- Joined: Aug 16, 2003
-
I do not oppose Dirk's suspension.
My only gripe is why are flagrant fouls only enacted when it yields distressing results? James Jones did the exact same thing to Shaq yesterday (in front of Stern no less, who was doing color commentary for the Blazers) and since Shaq doesn't weigh like a girl, he was able to keep his balance. I also remember Matt Barnes shoving Turiaf's head in mid-air.
In both cases neither player sustained any injuries but that is irrelevant; the sum and substance is that it was unsportsmanlike and that alone, merits a flagrant or in Barne's case, a suspension.
My only gripe is why are flagrant fouls only enacted when it yields distressing results? James Jones did the exact same thing to Shaq yesterday (in front of Stern no less, who was doing color commentary for the Blazers) and since Shaq doesn't weigh like a girl, he was able to keep his balance. I also remember Matt Barnes shoving Turiaf's head in mid-air.
In both cases neither player sustained any injuries but that is irrelevant; the sum and substance is that it was unsportsmanlike and that alone, merits a flagrant or in Barne's case, a suspension.
-
arkuo
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,639
- And1: 2,261
- Joined: Jun 16, 2004
nobody's questioning if he's deserving or not... its just that how come there's a "time delay" to wait for reactions around the league before upgrading it to a flagrant 2...
the problem is, there is no solid criteria in the league for flagrant fouls... its almosts a subjective matter... like saintofkillers said above, exact same things happened, but it didnt get a suspension... i think its more of mark cuban's reputation to the league office...
the problem is, there is no solid criteria in the league for flagrant fouls... its almosts a subjective matter... like saintofkillers said above, exact same things happened, but it didnt get a suspension... i think its more of mark cuban's reputation to the league office...
-
DKwan416
- Junior
- Posts: 305
- And1: 2
- Joined: Jul 02, 2006
you guys and your conspiracy theories.
fact of the matter is, a flagrant 2 was not assessed during the game, and so the automatic suspension did not apply. to go against an 'in-game' ruling takes time to evaluate.
during the pacers ordeal with artest or melo or anyone throwing fists, we all knew suspensions were coming... but it took a week to find out just how long the suspensions would be.
to go ahead and blame this on mark cuban is naive and silly. mark didn't go and drape his arm around Kirilenko and throw him to the ground.. intentional or not.
it's all about sending a message around the league to reinforce the idea (ala tj ford and al horford) that career threatening fouls will never be tolerated in the NBA.
case closed
fact of the matter is, a flagrant 2 was not assessed during the game, and so the automatic suspension did not apply. to go against an 'in-game' ruling takes time to evaluate.
during the pacers ordeal with artest or melo or anyone throwing fists, we all knew suspensions were coming... but it took a week to find out just how long the suspensions would be.
to go ahead and blame this on mark cuban is naive and silly. mark didn't go and drape his arm around Kirilenko and throw him to the ground.. intentional or not.
it's all about sending a message around the league to reinforce the idea (ala tj ford and al horford) that career threatening fouls will never be tolerated in the NBA.
case closed
-
arkuo
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,639
- And1: 2,261
- Joined: Jun 16, 2004
my point is aimed at the NBA league office giving suspensions based on "subjectivity"... they really dont have solid criteria for one to recognize a flagrant 1 or 2... they say its a case by case thing, and to me, that's pretty much wrong...
speaking of the melo punching thing... melo "sucker punched" mardy collins and got an 18 game suspension, KG did the same thing and got suspended for one game... which eventually led to george karl questioning the league's "judging committee" on suspensions.. he said that it seemed like throwing a punch means a one game suspension, while landing a punch means 18....
again, nobody here is against the dirk suspension, in fact a lot of us agree that it warranted one, but the fact of the matter is, the league should be consistent about these calls and not wager things on subjectivity alone...
but since the league does stuff thru subjectivity, like the re-played game between miami and atlanta wherein they would reset the clock to 59 seconds or so... then they said that the league would allow the newly traded players like marion and bibby to participate in them,, if that's the case, then what's the purpose of being as accurate as possible, trying the re-play the game to the closest milisecond as possible, then let the players, who didnt play on the previous game, play on the re-play of the game? what's the point of being so accurate? get my point? admit it or not, these subjectivity technicalities happen all the time, hence the complains for consistency...
speaking of the melo punching thing... melo "sucker punched" mardy collins and got an 18 game suspension, KG did the same thing and got suspended for one game... which eventually led to george karl questioning the league's "judging committee" on suspensions.. he said that it seemed like throwing a punch means a one game suspension, while landing a punch means 18....
again, nobody here is against the dirk suspension, in fact a lot of us agree that it warranted one, but the fact of the matter is, the league should be consistent about these calls and not wager things on subjectivity alone...
but since the league does stuff thru subjectivity, like the re-played game between miami and atlanta wherein they would reset the clock to 59 seconds or so... then they said that the league would allow the newly traded players like marion and bibby to participate in them,, if that's the case, then what's the purpose of being as accurate as possible, trying the re-play the game to the closest milisecond as possible, then let the players, who didnt play on the previous game, play on the re-play of the game? what's the point of being so accurate? get my point? admit it or not, these subjectivity technicalities happen all the time, hence the complains for consistency...
-
DKwan416
- Junior
- Posts: 305
- And1: 2
- Joined: Jul 02, 2006
the league does what it can to be as fair as possible as times change. a punch in the 90s might get you a game suspension. in 2008 it might get you 20.
every foul is different. it's impossible to place a set of criteria on each flagrant foul. flagrant 1 means somebody was hit such and such a way to a degree of 5 out of 10. flagrant 2 means somebody was fouled in such a way that they fell on their back and writhed in pain for 2 minutes. NO! you HAVE to judge each one case by case. and evaluate all the evidence.
if it was so easy to put exact definitions on flagrant 1 or 2, it would have been done already. i mean you know a hard foul from a soft one when you see it. theres a difference... no real definition to distinguish the difference or overlap. when does a soft foul cease to be soft and become a hard foul? who knows? but you do make the distinction naturally.
my point is, the ruling was fair, and most people were already expecting it. in the end there has to be some degree of subjectivity... it's the nature of the sport.
every foul is different. it's impossible to place a set of criteria on each flagrant foul. flagrant 1 means somebody was hit such and such a way to a degree of 5 out of 10. flagrant 2 means somebody was fouled in such a way that they fell on their back and writhed in pain for 2 minutes. NO! you HAVE to judge each one case by case. and evaluate all the evidence.
if it was so easy to put exact definitions on flagrant 1 or 2, it would have been done already. i mean you know a hard foul from a soft one when you see it. theres a difference... no real definition to distinguish the difference or overlap. when does a soft foul cease to be soft and become a hard foul? who knows? but you do make the distinction naturally.
my point is, the ruling was fair, and most people were already expecting it. in the end there has to be some degree of subjectivity... it's the nature of the sport.