Brooks was trying to injure Damp-why no flagrant 2? Watch it again. - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

tgfan · 12-19-2009, 12:03 PM

As they replayed the incident over and over, if you watch as both Damp and Brooks start to come back down, Brooks raised his right leg up under Damp's legs in an obvious attempt to trip him or make him fall awkwardly. I am convince he was deliberately trying to hurt Damp. This is the kind of thing that leads to torn ACLs. I think the way he raised his leg is what caused Damp to land so off balance and fall towards Brooks. Damp saw Brooks' leg come up under him, and that is what pi$$ed him off so much.

I think the Mavs should file a protest that Brooks was not ejected from the game.

Does anybody have a video of of the incident?

EricaLubarsky · 12-19-2009, 12:28 PM

Is that really the biggest issue? The problem with arguing any call is that if you argue too many you start to sound like you are just a whiner. You may have a legitimate point but A) its pretty hard to prove intent or unsportsmanshiply behavior especially with the size difference B) I doubt it will do any good to make a complaint with the NBA. Stern won't change the outcome by pretending they ejected Brooks, and they arent going to fine/suspend him.

dude1394 · 12-19-2009, 12:32 PM

I thoguth the right call was made except for the technical on dampier. You can argue it wasn't a flagrant but imo it was. For the record I do not believe in hard fouls either for that matter.

It was clearly close enough to be a flagrant, as far as dampier throwing an elbow I didn't see it, on either replay I watched.

Rick41 · 12-19-2009, 12:38 PM

Brooks couldn't injure Damp even if he swung a bat at his knees. That goofy duck looking guard is harmless.

EricaLubarsky · 12-19-2009, 12:39 PM

Its just incredibly subjective for refs. The refs pissed off the Mavs and the Mave in turn pissed off the refs with their objections. Nine times out of ten that elbow would have gone uncalled, but this was not one of those games. Its like emphatically dunking-- refs wont usually call the tech but they will occasionally. The tech was just the cherry on top of a horribly called game. Mavs needed to keep composure better through the bad calls because obvious frustration with refs often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

tgfan · 12-19-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick41

Brooks couldn't injure Damp even if he swung a bat at his knees. That goofy duck looking guard is harmless.

I disagree completely. If a man as big as Damp comes down wrong on one leg, it would be easy to tear an ACL. I think it was close to an injury, and that was why Damp was so mad. You really need to watch it again. Watch the leg.

tgfan · 12-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Is that really the biggest issue? The problem with arguing any call is that if you argue too many you start to sound like you are just a whiner. You may have a legitimate point but A) its pretty hard to prove intent or unsportsmanshiply behavior especially with the size difference B) I doubt it will do any good to make a complaint with the NBA. Stern won't change the outcome by pretending they ejected Brooks, and they arent going to fine/suspend him.

I know it wouldn't change anything, but you have to protect your players. I still say Brooks was trying to hurt Damp by inserting his leg under Damp. I was surprised the refs didn't realize it and throw Brooks out.

dude1394 · 12-19-2009, 12:49 PM

I"d like to watch it again, can you help?

EricaLubarsky · 12-19-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgfan

I disagree completely. If a man as big as Damp comes down wrong on one leg, it would be easy to tear and ACL. I think it was close to an injury, and that was why Damp was so mad. You really need to watch it again. Watch the leg.

How can you disagree completely? Brooks undeniably looks like a bat.

DOMINATOR · 12-19-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgfan

As they replayed the incident over and over, if you watch as both Damp and Brooks start to come back down, Brooks raised his right leg up under Damp's legs in an obvious attempt to trip him or make him fall awkwardly. I am convince he was deliberately trying to hurt Damp. This is the kind of thing that leads to torn ACLs. I think the way he raised his leg is what caused Damp to land so off balance and fall towards Brooks. Damp saw Brooks' leg come up under him, and that is what pi$$ed him off so much.

I think the Mavs should file a protest that Brooks was not ejected from the game.

Does anybody have a video of of the incident?

you come spewing all this crap and dont even have a video.
that whole thing was stupid, should have just been a shooting foul and no T on dampier.

i dont see how you think that was a flagrant 2 when kidd's is just a foul. watch kidd's feet taking 2 steps then jumping into andersen setting a pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfkIDDbJsg

DubOverdose · 12-19-2009, 03:59 PM

I didn't think it was a "dirty" play at all and I believe the right call on Brooks was made. However, they can't assess Damp a T.

Murphy3 · 12-19-2009, 04:09 PM

When I saw it live, I thought it was nothing more than a foul.

antoinewalker · 12-19-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgfan

As they replayed the incident over and over, if you watch as both Damp and Brooks start to come back down, Brooks raised his right leg up under Damp's legs in an obvious attempt to trip him or make him fall awkwardly. I am convince he was deliberately trying to hurt Damp. This is the kind of thing that leads to torn ACLs. I think the way he raised his leg is what caused Damp to land so off balance and fall towards Brooks. Damp saw Brooks' leg come up under him, and that is what pi$$ed him off so much.

I think the Mavs should file a protest that Brooks was not ejected from the game.

Does anybody have a video of of the incident?

mavsfan1000 · 12-19-2009, 06:52 PM

It was not a dirty play. Just a foul to prevent a dunk. Those can look dirty a lot of time because he wasn't in good position to stop it.

tcat075 · 12-19-2009, 07:10 PM

Come on, man. It was just a hard foul, deserving the flagrant-1 it got. As far as I know, Aaron Brooks is not one of those thugs who would try to hurt another player. Why assume the worst?

Entropy · 12-19-2009, 11:50 PM

Even the rockets own announcers were making fun of Brooks trying to stop Dampier on that would-be dunk. Brooks is a clean player, like all of the rockets except Ariza.

G-Man · 12-20-2009, 05:04 AM

I didn't see the play, but wasnt Stackhouse suspended from the Finals for a flagrant whn he essentially bounced off of Shaq?

tcat075 · 12-20-2009, 09:17 AM

If anything, Brooks was trying to knee him in the groin, not injure him.

AO41 · 12-20-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcat075

If anything, Brooks was trying to knee him in the groin, not injure him.

would that really have been better???

Um the question isnt whether it was a foul...it was a foul....BUT why the hell does Damp get thrown out. If I understand correctly he didnt even get to shoot free throws??

And the Mavs are filing a complaint saying that the refs decided that Damp threw an elbow only after reviewing the foul to see if it was a flagerent, at which point they should not have been allowed to make the call on Damp anyway....according to an article I read.

EricaLubarsky · 12-20-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Man

I didn't see the play, but wasnt Stackhouse suspended from the Finals for a flagrant whn he essentially bounced off of Shaq?

It shouldnt matter how big the players are and its true about Stack/Shaq. Stack threw all his weight into Shaq to keep him from going up with a shot on multiple occasions and on at least one occasion that I remember, he recieved the flagrant for it despite making minimal impact on Shaq's movement.

The thing in the NBA is that a flagrant in one game is a PF in another, a shooting foul in another, and a non-call in another. Reffing in the NBA is the most subjective and inconsistent of any sport, except for maybe soccer. At least the NBA will occasionally reverse a horrible call.

This was a Flagrant 1 though, absolutely and undoubtedly with the slim possibility of it being a Flagrant 2. Flagrant 1's are just defined by "unnecessary contact " only. Only if its malicious, unsportsmanlike or attempts harm does a flagrant 1 become a flagrant 2.

People are arguing that its not a flagrant but any time you make significant contact with a players head, its a flagrant. He made a LOT of contact with Dampier including hand contact with Damp's head. You dont have to intend harm to get a flagrant.

And yeah it was bull that Damp gets mauled, and throws a light frustration elbow that leads to this whole fiasco. The refs have a 9 minute huddle and then assess a technical to Dampier? Not that we wanted Dampier to shoot those FTs, but still in the timeline Damp was flagrantly fouled and then was assessed a technical. He shoots FTs, then the Rockets shoot the technical, then Mavs recieve possession with Dampier ejected (2 techs is an automatic ejection no matter how touchy and weak the techs are.)

Flacolaco · 12-20-2009, 03:11 PM

I love starting a new thread with "watch it again" and no link provided.

Nowitzki4President · 12-20-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I love starting a new thread with "watch it again" and no link provided.

I was thinking the exact same thing...

ty · 12-20-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I love starting a new thread with "watch it again" and no link provided.

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...40#post1051840

crybaby · 12-20-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgfan

As they replayed the incident over and over, if you watch as both Damp and Brooks start to come back down, Brooks raised his right leg up under Damp's legs in an obvious attempt to trip him or make him fall awkwardly. I am convince he was deliberately trying to hurt Damp. This is the kind of thing that leads to torn ACLs. I think the way he raised his leg is what caused Damp to land so off balance and fall towards Brooks. Damp saw Brooks' leg come up under him, and that is what pi$$ed him off so much.

I think the Mavs should file a protest that Brooks was not ejected from the game.

Does anybody have a video of of the incident?

and you are the reason why everybody thinks that we are all whiners. brooks was just trying to prevent the dunk. as far as i know the only player who is sketchy on the rockets is trevor ariza. he took out rudy fernandez and then tried to elbow some other dude in the back of the head a week ago.

we lost. the officiating was bad yeah. but at least it was bad both ways. landry got assessed a foul for hitting dirk's elbow with his face?
kidd clearly attacked andersen for god knows wat reason.
that was a bad game all in all.
we just got to regroup and get a win against cleveland. who cares about the rockets.

92bDad · 12-21-2009, 11:55 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...si_mostpopular

Official protest filed...just worded in such a way that it could actually be filed.

No doubt, that game was an example of Tim Donaghy talks about regarding the NBA, but to prove it is no doubt nearly impossible.

It's clear the NBA will rule against Cuban, but it at least gives him a resource to file the complaint ... it's cheaper than a fine.

mavErika · 01-04-2010, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92bDad

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...si_mostpopular

Official protest filed...just worded in such a way that it could actually be filed.

No doubt, that game was an example of Tim Donaghy talks about regarding the NBA, but to prove it is no doubt nearly impossible.

It's clear the NBA will rule against Cuban, but it at least gives him a resource to file the complaint ... it's cheaper than a fine.

the decision should come these days, and honestly, I am curious what they say is here different to the Hawks-Heat situation:

Quote:

The Atlanta Hawks and Miami Heat must replay the final 51.9 seconds of their game last month because the official scorer ruled incorrectly that Shaquille O'Neal fouled out, the league said Friday.

Awarding a player with a 6th foul, when it's actually the fifth should not be handled any different than awarding a player with a sixth foul, when they are (wrong and) by rule prohibited to make that decision in such a situation.

sefant77 · 01-04-2010, 03:51 PM

Of course they will reject, im also just curious with which blabla they will separate this case from the Hawks-Heat.

mavErika · 01-05-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sefant77

Of course they will reject, im also just curious with which blabla they will separate this case from the Hawks-Heat.

It seems they figured it wouldn't need much blabla this time, as nobody remembers the circumstances, or even cares anymore, more than two weeks after the game.

Quote:

NBA denies Mavs' protest of Dampier ejection

By Official release
Posted Jan 5 2010 6:34PM

NEW YORK, January 5, 2010 -- The National Basketball Association announced today that Commissioner David Stern has denied the Dallas Mavericks' protest of their 116-108 loss to the Houston Rockets on December 18.

In the protest, the Mavericks argued that the referees, following an instant replay review, improperly called a technical foul on Erick Dampier with 1:01 remaining in overtime, which -- as his second technical foul -- resulted in his ejection from the game.

Commissioner Stern determined that the referees' decision to assess a technical foul on Dampier was a judgment call, and not a misapplication of the playing rules, which cannot successfully be protested under NBA rules.

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/01/05/m...s=iref:nbahpt2

tmac1yao11 · 01-05-2010, 07:53 PM

NEW YORK, January 5, 2010 -- The National Basketball Association announced today that Commissioner David Stern has denied the Dallas Mavericks' protest of their 116-108 loss to the Houston Rockets on December 18.

In the protest, the Mavericks argued that the referees, following an instant replay review, improperly called a technical foul on Erick Dampier with 1:01 remaining in overtime, which -- as his second technical foul -- resulted in his ejection from the game.

Commissioner Stern determined that the referees' decision to assess a technical foul on Dampier was a judgment call, and not a misapplication of the playing rules, which cannot successfully be protested under NBA rules.

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/01/05/m...s=iref:nbahpt2