Face Stomp

[Krapinsky]

I know for a fact you've said you ignore my posts twice now. But I guess that's just what you say when you've been proven wrong and you've run out of comebacks.

[horaceworthy]

I don't see that at all. Before he steps he knows Scola is laying by his feet. Moreover, a more natural step would have taken him over Scola's body, or to the left of his head, not back behind him and into Scola's chest. I've watched this thing more than Oliver Stone watched the Zapruder film and the more I see it the more I think it looks intentional.

A natural step would have taken him into Scola's arms, as Scola naturally put his hands up. People like Rodman made a habit of using situations like that to trip the opponent up.

Love had a choice between being a pussy and being a dick. He chose to be a dick. Looked intentional to me, but not done with the intent to cause injury, just the intent to be a bit of a dick.

Coupled with his almost too candid comments afterwards, the league couldn't not suspend him. Particularly given he admitted to remembering the nut shot (which also looked intentional to me when it happened).

To me, it was a similar play to the nut shot in terms of the danger it presented. If it had actually been a stomp, then it really would be the dirtiest play of the year, but I don't see how anyone could call that a stomp with a straight face.

The league had to suspend him, because you can't have players stomping on each other's domes. Better to nip anything like that in the bud and possibly overreact than let the perception they allow that type of play to go unpunished for whatever reason linger.

I also wouldn't say that Bynum's hit was anymore a basketball play than this. Bynum stopped a shot from going up, Love used Scola to gain traction and get up the floor. Both did so in an unnecessarily dickish manner, but I'd say Bynum initiating an aerial collision with a man who barely comes up to his navel is more dangerous than what Love did (although I don't think anyone's arguing that).

[Wingman]

I haven't read this thread but I think it was obviously intentional, Scola's save doesn't justify anything, and we are lucky he only got 2 games. That said, I don't think it was a "face stomp," but he certainly could have avoided the event, and should have. It was a classless move, indefensible. So how did this get to 14 pages? haha

[funkatron101]

He had four choices.

1. Be a sports gentleman: Forget the fast break, walk around him.
2. Be a clumsy oaf sportsman: Trip over Scola's arms. Fall on his face.
3. Be a competitor: Go for the fast break, try to clear Scola..Oops, whatever.
4. Be an a$$hole: Stomp his face in.

Most Wolves fans say he did #3. Many non-Wolves fans claim he did #4.

[Breakdown777]

The league had to suspend him, because you can't have players stomping on each other's domes. Better to nip anything like that in the bud and possibly overreact than let the perception they allow that type of play to go unpunished for whatever reason linger.

Or the ref's could've just done their job DURING the game, called the foul on Love, and stopped play, probably preventing this whole occurrence from occurring.

The more I watch, I think Love and his size 19 were stuck between a rock and a hard place. After Love looked down his options probably played out in his head like this:

"Oh geez. Scola's on the ground, I better step past him...oh WAIT, I'm tied up in his arms; Do I

A- Fall down and let him trip me
B- Just step on him and keep balance to get on offense, or
C- try to potentially avoid this alto---WHOOPS losing balance, better step on him".

CRAP! Did I just kick him in the face? Why did he lift his head!?"

Was it intentional? Well in an abrupt sense yes, as Kevin chose to regain balance at the cost of Scola's mug. Kevin should've said "abrupt" instead of "heat of the moment". When you use "Heat of the moment" it usually accompanies an excuse for cheating on someone or putting the beat-down on someone. Hey, at least it was the latter, before we get too in depth on Scola and Loves "History".

[Breakdown777]

He had four choices.

1. Be a sports gentleman: Forget the fast break, walk around him.
2. Be a clumsy oaf sportsman: Trip over Scola's arms. Fall on his face.
3. Be a competitor: Go for the fast break, try to clear Scola..Oops, whatever.
4. Be an a$$hole: Stomp his face in.

Most Wolves fans say he did #3. Many non-Wolves fans claim he did #4.

I swear we're not the same person, I read through the entire thread before I make my post, and see that nobody has written something quite like the quoted above. Alas, while I'm writing it, Good ol' Funk writes basically the same thing. Foiled again!

[Saltine]

I think it was number three
though I think it was intentional
and I think the ball to the balls was intentional as well.
And none of this bothers me at all.

Why are some of you so tweaked out?

This is nothing like McHale attempting to decapitate Rambis,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r6vXeOfyQ[/youtube]
or dozens of things I saw watching ball in the 80's. I don't think it was dirty, he didn't put any weight into it, he certainly could have. I'm glad Love's getting a couple games off to rest actually, lol

Ron Artest trying to kill JJ in the west finals. 1 game suspension. LA is full of whiny little homer bitches

Another dirty Laker.

the 'unintentional' rapist, attacking Okafor;

Another evil Laker, Derek Fisher hard fouls Scola.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3O7vTDquPs[/youtube]

A reminder of how it used to be, start at 50 seconds, or at 3:30 if you don't want to watch it all;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlGzseb0toI[/youtube]

[Basti]

While I've always thought Love's move was intentional, at first I was really pissed they suspended him for 2 games. Yes, I thought Stern and co. were favoring certain teams/players because I thought Bynum got away with a one game suspension for the very first elbow he threw (I believe it was against Gerald Wallace some years ago) but apparently he was suspended for two games after elbowing Beasley. Now I'm okay with it. Although, I find Love's move to be less risky of causing an injury than Bynum's elbows.

[pumunga]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1055 ... suspension

[champalift]

While I've always thought Love's move was intentional, at first I was really pissed they suspended him for 2 games. Yes, I thought Stern and co. were favoring certain teams/players because I thought Bynum got away with a one game suspension for the very first elbow he threw (I believe it was against Gerald Wallace some years ago) but apparently he was suspended for two games after elbowing Beasley. Now I'm okay with it. Although, I find Love's move to be less risky of causing an injury than Bynum's elbows.

Keep in mind that that was 2 games during a 82 game season for Bynum on Beasley. Love gets 2 in a 66 game season. This means that the NBA sees Love's play as "worse" than Bynum's tackle as a repeat offender...

[Krapinsky]

"basketball play" was a poor choice of words. I meant it in a sense as in the play served a basketball purpose -- a ridiculously hard foul to a guy that's killing you driving to the basket -- which has a long history in the game. Granted, your usually supposed to pretend to go for the ball -- but the danger is just the same. Stepping on someone on the ground just to demean someone whose physical play is getting under your skin (at least that's how i see it) doesn't serve a basketball purpose. Where ever his foot might have landed naturally, Love could have easily stepped over him, or dodged him in a number of ways, perhaps with a one hop on his right leg, or by not turning into him to begin with (he knows he's down there - just shuffle away).

I do agree that "stomp" is an exaggeration and that Scola probably wasn't in danger of injury (even if Love is 260 lbs) comparable to other flagrant fouls. For that reason I would compare this more to spitting in someone's face, more than the bynum elbows.

[champalift]

"basketball play" was a poor choice of words. I meant it in a sense as in the play served a basketball purpose -- a ridiculously hard foul to a guy that's killing you driving to the basket -- which has a long history in the game. Granted, your usually supposed to pretend to go for the ball -- but the danger is just the same. Stepping on someone on the ground just to demean someone whose physical play is getting under your skin (at least that's how i see it) doesn't serve a basketball purpose. Where ever his foot might have landed naturally, Love could have easily stepped over him, or dodged him in a number of ways, perhaps with a one hop on his right leg, or by not turning into him to begin with (he knows he's down there - just shuffle away).

I see your point. The only problem is your entire rationale is based on Love having intent on stepping on Scola. I think it is impossible to say there was intent and that is why it should not be 2 games this season.

I just see this as another example of the NBA penalizing the Wolves more unjustly than others. Hell, the same day the Lakers head coach walked onto the court and (lightly I know) pushed the ref. 1 game for that? I can not even imagine if Love had done that. I know, tough to compare those incidents, very different situations.

I do agree that "stomp" is an exaggeration and that Scola probably wasn't in danger of injury (even if Love is 260 lbs) comparable to other flagrant fouls. For that reason I would compare this more to spitting in someone's face, more than the bynum elbows.

Could we compare it to throwing the ball at another players nuts perhaps?

[Krapinsky]

I do agree that "stomp" is an exaggeration and that Scola probably wasn't in danger of injury (even if Love is 260 lbs) comparable to other flagrant fouls. For that reason I would compare this more to spitting in someone's face, more than the bynum elbows.

Could we compare it to throwing the ball at another players nuts perhaps?

No, I don't think that's comparable. Any player in Scola's position would do the same thing -- throw the ball of the body of the defender standing right there. Getting hit square in the nuts, I think that's as much Love's fault as it is Scola's. If Love was using his brain, he wouldn't have got hit in the nuts.

[Krapinsky]

I just see this as another example of the NBA penalizing the Wolves more unjustly than others.

Do you really think this?

[champalift]

Ha, I mean this is kind of just going in circles. Couldn't you say the same thing about the "Stomp"? Scola could have moved. Just as much his fault. Scola could of aimed lower with the ball like Love could have not stepped exactly where he did.

I just see this as another example of the NBA penalizing the Wolves more unjustly than others.

Do you really think this?

Yes and no. I don't think it was the harshest thing in the world, but I think that Stern and the NBA are much more hesitant to make examples out of the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks etc. Unfortunately, we are a small(er) market team with little history so we have little weight with the NBA.

[Dewey]

I just see this as another example of the NBA penalizing the Wolves more unjustly than others.

Do you really think this?

Yes it s a joke ... crap goes on all the time for decades with no supensions. Not even a discussion. Either way its okay because it gives us a chance to see what we got -Love