Will Blake get suspended for that fan incident?

Akklaim1 · Post #1 » by **Akklaim1** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:56 am

I think he clearly poured water on that fan on purpose. I'm afraid he will get punished. Hopefully juat a fine.

Neddy · Post #2 » by **Neddy** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:02 am

doubt it.

besides, that fan deserved it. how dare he sit on the front row flaunting his piss and blue.

mttwlsn16 · Post #3 » by **mttwlsn16** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:01 am

He made it look accidental. It was clearly on purpose. The fans were heckling him. What he did was funny. I hate kobe, but if he did the same to some heckling fans I would laugh at that too.

No he obviously won't be suspended.

Quake Griffin · Post #4 » by **Quake Griffin** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:29 am

as someone stated in the GD...it's water.

that's only objectionable if ur allergic to water or ur a black woman who just had their hair done.
the fan will live.

besides...being down 1-0 with a must win game 2 looming over ur head is punishment enough.

Brovva Blaqq · Post #5 » by **Brovva Blaqq** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:39 am

A suspension would be a joke, a small fine like 25-50k is necessary though.

If you hit the wrong type of heckler, this could start a brawl.

Roscoe Sheed · Post #6 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:54 pm

How would the league ever prove he did it on purpose?

clip set · Post #7 » by **clip set** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:22 pm

If he gets suspended it'd be an absolute travesty. I didn't even think it was a realistic consideration until I saw all the people going nuts on the GB.

Post #8 » by **thanumba2clippersfan** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:07 pm

There's no way Blake would get suspended for that. A fine is possible, but not a suspension. I did think it was funny when I saw the clip, and it did look like he poured the water on purpose.

ejftw · Post #9 » by **ejftw** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:37 pm

With the timing of the Calathes suspension, I wouldn't be shocked to see Silver put his stamp on the league right away.

I know Nick isn't even 1/100th of Blake's value to the league and his respective team, but regardless.

If the fan does complain, which I don;t think he will unless pushed for it, I can just see the Clipper brass comping him tickets for Game 2

East Bay Sports · Post #10 » by **East Bay Sports** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:29 am

He deserves a fine but definitely not a suspension.

Post #11 » by **og15** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:31 am

Maybe he would have, but then the NBA wants to make up for this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949129004425217[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949358080536577[/tweet]

Ranma · Post #12 » by **Ranma** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:36 am

The NBA better have more common sense than Fox Sports did when they had Ralph and Mike suspended--breaking Ralph's iron-man streak of 25 years of not missing a broadcast--in overreaction to a complaint filed by Arya Towfighi in the Hamed Haddadi incident.

Neddy · Post #13 » by **Neddy** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:24 am

speaking of Ralph, Happy Birthday mr Lawler!!!! you are the best!!!! even though you never seemed happy or acknowledge my wife and i when we are only sitting 3 rows down from you at the Rose Garden each time you come to Portland.... I still love ya old man!!!!

azncorruptedo17 · Post #14 » by **azncorruptedo17** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:30 pm

just like the fans on the floor sidelines... they can get in the way sometimes

East Bay Sports · Post #15 » by **East Bay Sports** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:54 pm

og15 wrote:Maybe he would have, but then the NBA wants to make up for this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949129004425217[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949358080536577[/tweet]

Hilarious that of all the blown calls they choose to "acknowledge" this one (as if that does anything). The only reason it was an issue is because they replayed it in slow motion 1,000 times. In real time it looked like a swipe and CP3 embellishing a little to draw the call (he would never!!!). So yea, it was probably a foul, but with Paul's history of selling calls I can see how the no call happens in that situation. It wasn't nearly as blatant as a lot of people make it out to be.

Woodsanity · Post #16 » by **Woodsanity** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:00 pm

East Bay Sports wrote:
og15 wrote:Maybe he would have, but then the NBA wants to make up for this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949129004425217[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949358080536577[/tweet]

Hilarious that of all the blown calls they choose to "acknowledge" this one (as if that does anything). The only reason it was an issue is because they replayed it in slow motion 1,000 times. In real time it looked like a swipe and CP3 embellishing a little to draw the call (he would never!!!). So yea, it was probably a foul, but with Paul's history of selling calls I can see how the no call happens in that situation. It wasn't nearly as blatant as a lot of people make it out to be.

It was pretty blatant on the replay but in real time maybe not so much. Not surprised they blew that call the refs have been horrible for pretty much every playoff series so far as per usual. Anyway not angry about that call tbh. Clippers had many chances to win but blew it. Not to mention our bench was utter crap and completely threw the game away and Blake was just playing stupid(he got iffy fouls but he is also at fault).

kylem4711 · Post #17 » by **kylem4711** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:05 pm

i'd be ok with him getting a fine just to show that fans are never to be messed with. anything more than that would be stupid though. there is no way to prove blake meant to do that, eventhough he probably did.

Post #18 » by **og15** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:06 pm

East Bay Sports wrote:
og15 wrote:Maybe he would have, but then the NBA wants to make up for this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949129004425217[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949358080536577[/tweet]

Hilarious that of all the blown calls they choose to "acknowledge" this one (as if that does anything). The only reason it was an issue is because they replayed it in slow motion 1,000 times. In real time it looked like a swipe and CP3 embellishing a little to draw the call (he would never!!!). So yea, it was probably a foul, but with Paul's history of selling calls I can see how the no call happens in that situation. It wasn't nearly as blatant as a lot of people make it out to be.

Actually I think the ref didn't call it because he thought the ball was out on the Warriors, which was he original call made, so he was probably thinking instead of letting a foul be the deciding factor, give them back the ball, but of course, the replay showed otherwise and there was no way for it to be changed.

As to why they mentioned this one, I'd assume because it was with <20 seconds in the game and the less time there is, there less chance you have to make things up. I'm just assuming though, lol

Woodsanity · Post #19 » by **Woodsanity** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:07 pm

og15 wrote:
East Bay Sports wrote:
og15 wrote:Maybe he would have, but then the NBA wants to make up for this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949129004425217[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/status/457949358080536577[/tweet]

Hilarious that of all the blown calls they choose to "acknowledge" this one (as if that does anything). The only reason it was an issue is because they replayed it in slow motion 1,000 times. In real time it looked like a swipe and CP3 embellishing a little to draw the call (he would never!!!). So yea, it was probably a foul, but with Paul's history of selling calls I can see how the no call happens in that situation. It wasn't nearly as blatant as a lot of people make it out to be.

Actually I think the ref didn't call it because he thought the ball was out on the Warriors, which was he original call made, so he was probably thinking instead of letting a foul be the deciding factor, give them back the ball, but of course, the replay showed otherwise and there was no way for it to be changed.

It really is a flaw in the system. The moment they didn't call the foul they were forced to give Golden State the ball.

Post #20 » by **og15** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:09 pm

Woodsanity wrote:
og15 wrote:
East Bay Sports wrote:
Hilarious that of all the blown calls they choose to "acknowledge" this one (as if that does anything). The only reason it was an issue is because they replayed it in slow motion 1,000 times. In real time it looked like a swipe and CP3 embellishing a little to draw the call (he would never!!!). So yea, it was probably a foul, but with Paul's history of selling calls I can see how the no call happens in that situation. It wasn't nearly as blatant as a lot of people make it out to be.

Actually I think the ref didn't call it because he thought the ball was out on the Warriors, which was he original call made, so he was probably thinking instead of letting a foul be the deciding factor, give them back the ball, but of course, the replay showed otherwise and there was no way for it to be changed.

It really is a flaw in the system. The moment they didn't call the foul they were forced to give Golden State the ball.

Yup, it is what it is. If there's no replay, the ref would probably give it to the Clippers because there was a foul, but replay is good, so we can't say there shouldn't be replay, but then it also puts more pressure on the refs to call fouls in situations that they could let it go.