Nowitzki suspended one game for flagrant foul on Utah's Kirilenko

[BigD]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

man I decided to give you another chance but you continue to prove you're an idiot. Dirk didn't mean to hurt him, he just meant to foul him and his arm got caught.

You can't grab someone by the neck and pull them down and it not be on purpose. I'm sure the split second it happened he wasn't thinking of the consequences and I'm sure he feels bad now. But common, he knew what he was doing.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by BigD

I can't believe Dirk did this to himself. He's falling apart. Now not only is he known as a choker now he's also a dirty player.

The bit's getting old man. I thought it was kinda funny at first, but you're wearing it out quickly.

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by BigD

I can't believe Dirk did this to himself. He's falling apart. Now not only is he known as a choker now he's also a dirty player.

This is the very first time I have seen anyone call Dirk a dirty player....and your a Mavs fan.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

This is the very first time I have seen anyone call Dirk a dirty player....and your a Mavs fan.

People that make dirty plays are considered dirty players. Before the Jazz game I've never seen him play that way.

[DirkFTW]

You change your mind pretty quickly about players. =)

[nashtymavsfan13]

BS.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by BigD

People that make dirty plays are considered dirty players. Before the Jazz game I've never seen him play that way.

This is why everyone calls you a moron. You are desperate to look for any excuse to rip on the Mavs. Preexisting knowledge of Dirk, evidence from the photos of the recent incident, and plain logical reasoning all point to it being an accident. But you are grateful for the opportunity to say something negative, then give your Bruce Bowen surprised face and say you had no idea he could be such a dirty player.

Well I for one ain't surprised you took the position you did, seeing as how you always want to say whatever you can to degrade the Mavs.

[ShaggyDirk]

I think it is funny to see two idiots with red boxes conversing. everybody just shaking their head in complete befuddlement of how these people are allowed to procreate

[Dave McNulla]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You can also see how his arm is caught and there is no mothereffing way to move his arm BACKWARDS to pull it out of there, especially considering how fast it happened.

dirk admitted to trying to keep him from making the layup. he said nothing like i was trying to move my hand out of there but it got caught on the left side of ak's neck.

[vmac]

Dirk is by no means a dirty player. Remember early on in the season when we used to give up "and 1s" after "and 1s?" Well, those times have changed. I appreciate all the hard fouls. I don't like seeing players get hurt, but I do want them to think twice before making a move. Besides, it wasn't intentional man. Lucky for us Dirk isn't a freak of nature and his elbow doesn't bend the other way.

I respect the decision of the suspension, but I really wish it wasn't against the Rockets. I never understood these suspensions to begin with. Shouldn't they be against the team in which the incident occurred? I mean it's nonsense how Rockets now get to benefit from all this. What makes them so lucky? I really hope we beat them tomorrow night.

[DavidDaMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

dirk admitted to trying to keep him from making the layup. he said nothing like i was trying to move my hand out of there but it got caught on the left side of ak's neck.

Well whats the point of defense if he wasn't trying to keep him from making the layup?

[pepe]

Well, here I go broken hearted... i dont agree with the suspention, but I am not going to cry either and I expect the MAVS to beat the Rockets in our home court without Dirk, we just played three of the best teams not only in the West but in the entire league. common the Jazz, Spurs and Lakers are a combine 26-4 (.866) in their last 10 home games and we lost the photo finish in all 3 games.

The absence of Dirk is what probably will keep this team focused and ready to go. Dont understimated the revenge factor, not againts the Rockets but as a statement to the League and support for their teammate

Avery has not excuses, he must have his team ready to play smart bball tomorrow.

Sometimes blessings come in disguise.

GO MAVS

[kingmalaki]

I don't think Dirk is a dirty player. I think that was a dirty play though.

[dirno2000]

It looked like a flagrant II watching it live and I haven't seen or heard anything since that would change my mind. I don't buy that his arm was stuck. If you look at the picture, he could have easily pulled his arm out of there. The fact that he proceeded with the take down made it a flagrant II.

I do think that the two Dirk suspension threads illustrate the double standard applied by some. If this was Josh making a play that resulted in him missing a crucial game he'd be labeled as dumb, ignorant, lazy and any other degrading moniker that they could come up with.

[Just211]

I don't think it was meant to be as hard as it was . If you look at the angle of his body, and arm, put yourself in that position and try to move your arm. It's impossible. that said, I think he meant to foul him, and hard, and put himself in an akward position. Accidents happen, and it doesn't matter if he meant it to happen how it did, but it still happened, and he has to pay the price. Maybe with Dirk out, Bass will get serious burn at PF (not C)all game, and show what he has. But I doubt it. Avery will probably put Stack out there all game, and go small.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

It looked like a flagrant II watching it live and I haven't seen or heard anything since that would change my mind. I don't buy that his arm was stuck. If you look at the picture, he could have easily pulled his arm out of there. The fact that he proceeded with the take down made it a flagrant II.

I do think that the two Dirk suspension threads illustrate the double standard applied by some. If this was Josh making a play that resulted in him missing a crucial game he'd be labeled as dumb, ignorant, lazy and any other degrading moniker that they could come up with.

Let's see.

The only direction in which it might be physically possible to remove his arm without dragging Kirilenko to the floor is straight up. Now when you're arm is outstretched straight out from your side and palm facing DOWN, it is possible to move your arm straight upwards. But notice that his arm is twisted backwards so that his palm faces upwards. (You can see his palm is open so he's not grabbing onto Kirilenko either.) In this position, it is physically impossible to move your arm straight up unless you're a contortionist.

Besides, Dirk is already falling to the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. Remember, he fell before Kirilenko did. That kind of force makes it that much tougher to pull your arm out.

As far as Dirk's comments, you have to see this in two separate events. First Dirk makes the hard foul, then he falls over. The first was already more than enough to stop the play and it didn't hurt Kirilenko. This is what Dirk was referring to. The second part was the fall, and the hardwood is what injured Kirilenko. Anyone who lands flat on their back like that is subject to injury. Hell, if the event unfolded just a little differently, it could have been Dirk being helped off the court.

[LonghornDub]

Check out what Stu Jackson said about it:

"We can consider a variety of different factors in terms of upgrading and fining or suspending. It's not just limited to the severity of the contact but to whether or not the player was injured on the play."

Seems what you said about the NHL is true here too, Flac.

It's sad, too, because that logic is completely flawed. As I said before, there is almost no relation between the culpability of the foul and the extent of the injury. Hell, you see potentially career ending injuries on plays where there's barely a foul or no foul at all (see Shaun Livingston). Meanwhile, some of the dirtiest, nastiest flagrant II fouls (see Stackhouse in Game 4 of the Finals) don't even have the victim on the ground for more than 10 seconds.

[Flacolaco]

Clearly Dirk is mounting the most akward attack of all time.....so sneaky....so deadly....it's so obvious to Stu and Stern.

Seriously....how could you call this intentional?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

Seems what you said about the NHL is true here too, Flac.

It's sad, too, because that logic is completely flawed. As I said before, there is almost no relation between the culpability of the foul and the extent of the injury. Hell, you see potentially career ending injuries on plays where there's barely a foul or no foul at all (see Shaun Livingston). Meanwhile, some of the dirtiest, nastiest flagrant II fouls (see Stackhouse in Game 4 of the Finals) don't even have the victim on the ground for more than 10 seconds.

I think it's a fairly well established method of "justice" that the penalty is tied to the damages. Remember that Cowboys cornerback--Dwayne Goodrich, I believe it was--that plowed into another car on I-35 and killed someone? He didn't have any more motive for manslaughter than anyone else who ever got behind the wheel drunk...but he sure as hell went to prison for manslaughter.

I find this to be a fair measure of penalty. Sure, most times when you act recklessly no one will get hurt. But when they do get hurt because you were reckless, there is nowhere else to point the blame.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's a fairly well established method of "justice" that the penalty is tied to the damages. Remember that Cowboys cornerback--Dwayne Goodrich, I believe it was--that plowed into another car on I-35 and killed someone? He didn't have any more motive for manslaughter than anyone else who ever got behind the wheel drunk...but he sure as hell went to prison for manslaughter.

I find this to be a fair measure of penalty. Sure, most times when you act recklessly no one will get hurt. But when they do get hurt because you were reckless, there is nowhere else to point the blame.

Well, I guess that's where you and I differ, Chum, because I don't see why there has to be any blame in the first place.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Clearly Dirk is mounting the most akward attack of all time.....so sneaky....so deadly....it's so obvious to Stu and Stern.

Seriously....how could you call this intentional?

He made a move on a player that wasn't directly going for the ball on defense. It was that move (well before the photo in question) that led to this situation.

It's not that big a deal. It was a good, hard foul--the kind of foul that used to be commonplace. And it's a little one-game suspension. Maybe in the future guys will be a little more hesitant to take it in on Dirk--Stromile Swift, anyone?--and that will be a good thing. Big guys are supposed to make the paint an area that the timid don't like to enter.

[Flacolaco]

I certainly don't think that Dirk was intentionally trying to hurt the scrawny SOB.

But at the same time, if someone were to do that to Dirk, I'd be calling for their head. So the suspension I can deal with.

I just thought that picture was great in illustrating the odd circumstance of it all.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Well, I guess that's where you and I differ, Chum, because I don't see why there has to be any blame in the first place.

There is blame because Kirilenko didn't do anything wrong, or reckless, himself. There is every reason to believe that if Dirk didn't decide to bring the wood then Kirilenko wouldn't have left the game for x-rays and the hospital. Basketball is generally not a contact sport in the sense that football is, where high-speed collisions are commonplace. Dirk caused the collision to happen. Surely you won't deny that. That's why Dirk is to blame.

But again, it's no big deal. In fact, I'd bet that Avery Johnson is quite happy with the happenstance. Bill Lambieer used to dish out fouls like that all the time. Kurt Rambis sometimes would. Jerry Stackhouse can do it, too. (He can also pop a guy in the face in the tunnel or the parking lot.) Tough guys, who are serious about defending their paint, do that sort of thing. Euro softies don't.

Maybe it would be a better thing for the Mavs if the truth of the matter was NOT that Dirk got his wittle arm caught up and couldn't do anything different...and it WAS that Dirk was leaving a message that said you don't come into this lane against us unless you are prepared to end your night in a hospital.

Years and years of talk about Dirk and the Mavs needing to get tougher, and when they do there are people here who insist that they didn't mean it.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by BigD

People that make dirty plays are considered dirty players. Before the Jazz game I've never seen him play that way.

I Hate You!!!

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by BigD

You can't grab someone by the neck and pull them down and it not be on purpose. I'm sure the split second it happened he wasn't thinking of the consequences and I'm sure he feels bad now. But common, he knew what he was doing.

I Hate You!!!

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's a fairly well established method of "justice" that the penalty is tied to the damages. Remember that Cowboys cornerback--Dwayne Goodrich, I believe it was--that plowed into another car on I-35 and killed someone? He didn't have any more motive for manslaughter than anyone else who ever got behind the wheel drunk...but he sure as hell went to prison for manslaughter.

I find this to be a fair measure of penalty. Sure, most times when you act recklessly no one will get hurt. But when they do get hurt because you were reckless, there is nowhere else to point the blame.

Penalties being tied to damages is a better analogy in civil law where the parties are going at each other directly. It's not the same thing as a situation like this where a 3rd party (the NBA) is stepping in and making a decision without any adversarial process between the 2 people involved. Also, civil law only ever involves payment of damages (e.g. a fine). This is more than a fine, obviously.

The situation here is much more like criminal law, which you mentioned. The difference is, in criminal law, a prosecutor doesn't just get to examine the situation and decide the penalty. He's got to present a case, against the evidence of the other party, and get 12 people to agree that the person involved was acting with a certain state of mind.

I understand completely that the NBA is a dictatorship and that there's never going to be a jury, but the flagrant foul rule is a poorly designed rule. A suspension handed down at the whim of 1 or 2 individuals (Stern and Stu) without any real adversarial process should strictly reflect the blameworthiness of the player. The way this rule is set up, it often doesn't reflect that at all, especially when they're admitting that the result is an important consideration.

The result is CERTAINLY not an important consideration in your manslaughter analogy--manslaughter and murder have the exact same result, but have vastly different penalties because they reflect different levels of blameworthiness. That's somewhat lacking here.

I agree with you that Dirk was surely reckless, so I'm not too worked up over the one game suspension. He deserves some blame for being reckless. What bothers me is that they are admitting that they actually consider the extent of the injury, which is completely inappropriate to a suspension-type penalty. Whether or not Dirk was reckless has absolutely nothing to do with the extent of AK's injury.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Let's see.

The only direction in which it might be physically possible to remove his arm without dragging Kirilenko to the floor is straight up. Now when you're arm is outstretched straight out from your side and palm facing DOWN, it is possible to move your arm straight upwards. But notice that his arm is twisted backwards so that his palm faces upwards. (You can see his palm is open so he's not grabbing onto Kirilenko either.) In this position, it is physically impossible to move your arm straight up unless you're a contortionist.

Besides, Dirk is already falling to the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. Remember, he fell before Kirilenko did. That kind of force makes it that much tougher to pull your arm out.

As far as Dirk's comments, you have to see this in two separate events. First Dirk makes the hard foul, then he falls over. The first was already more than enough to stop the play and it didn't hurt Kirilenko. This is what Dirk was referring to. The second part was the fall, and the hardwood is what injured Kirilenko. Anyone who lands flat on their back like that is subject to injury. Hell, if the event unfolded just a little differently, it could have been Dirk being helped off the court.

Dirk can pull his arm inward. Not very far but he wouldn’t have to pull it in very far to get it off Kirilenko’s neck. It wouldn’t have stopped the fall but it would have shown intent to try to avoid hurting the player.

Of course the issue that’s being ignored is that Dirk never should have attempted to stop him from scoring in the first place. I keep reading “Dirk wasn’t trying to hurt him, he was just trying to keep him from scoring”. That’s all well and good if you’re in good (or even decent) defensive position. But when you’re behind a player and going to the ground yourself, you’re in no position to stop him from scoring.

Let’s take that line of reasoning to the next step. Say Dirk was chasing him down the court and he’s a couple of feet behind. Dirk’s no Josh Smith so he’s not going to catch him and pin the ball on the backboard. What if Dirk decides that the only way to stop him from scoring is to dive for his legs football style? Obviously you’d call that a flagrant II. That’s an extreme example but the point is the same. You can be so far out of position that it’s impossible to stop a player from scoring without committing a flagrant II and in this case Dirk was.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I Hate You!!!

Did I mention I Hate BigD?!!!

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There is blame because Kirilenko didn't do anything wrong, or reckless, himself. There is every reason to believe that if Dirk didn't decide to bring the wood then Kirilenko wouldn't have left the game for x-rays and the hospital. Basketball is generally not a contact sport in the sense that football is, where high-speed collisions are commonplace. Dirk caused the collision to happen. Surely you won't deny that. That's why Dirk is to blame.

But again, it's no big deal. In fact, I'd bet that Avery Johnson is quite happy with the happenstance. Bill Lambieer used to dish out fouls like that all the time. Kurt Rambis sometimes would. Jerry Stackhouse can do it, too. (He can also pop a guy in the face in the tunnel or the parking lot.) Tough guys, who are serious about defending their paint, do that sort of thing. Euro softies don't.

Maybe it would be a better thing for the Mavs if the truth of the matter was NOT that Dirk got his wittle arm caught up and couldn't do anything different...and it WAS that Dirk was leaving a message that said you don't come into this lane against us unless you are prepared to end your night in a hospital.

Years and years of talk about Dirk and the Mavs needing to get tougher, and when they do there are people here who insist that they didn't mean it.

If by "blame" you mean he was the one to initiate contact, then sure he's to blame. But I don't interpret this to mean "he must suffer". Besides, it's the Rockets who will reap the benefits, not the Jazz, and it's not like you can justify their deserving of this advantage. Therefore, I still do not see how justice is automatically served by penalizing Dallas.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

Dirk can pull his arm inward. Not very far but he wouldn’t have to pull it in very far to get it off Kirilenko’s neck. It wouldn’t have stopped the fall but it would have shown intent to try to avoid hurting the player.

You're still pretending his palm is facing down. He can't bend his elbow to move away from Kirilenko in this position either.

Of course the issue that’s being ignored is that Dirk never should have attempted to stop him from scoring in the first place. I keep reading “Dirk wasn’t trying to hurt him, he was just trying to keep him from scoring”. That’s all well and good if you’re in good (or even decent) defensive position. But when you’re behind a player and going to the ground yourself, you’re in no position to stop him from scoring.

Let’s take that line of reasoning to the next step. Say Dirk was chasing him down the court and he’s a couple of feet behind. Dirk’s no Josh Smith so he’s not going to catch him and pin the ball on the backboard. What if Dirk decides that the only way to stop him from scoring is to dive for his legs football style? Obviously you’d call that a flagrant II. That’s an extreme example but the point is the same. You can be so far out of position that it’s impossible to stop a player from scoring without committing a flagrant II and in this case Dirk was.

I've never known a foul to be judged by the initial distance between the players, or how athletic they are.

If Dirk managed to foul him without falling over then it would have been a good hard foul and no flagrant, even though Kirilenko would have still earned his points at the stripe.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You're still pretending his palm is facing down. He can't bend his elbow to move away from Kirilenko in this position either.

How hard is it to turn your palm.

I've never known a foul to be judged by the initial distance between the players, or how athletic they are.

I didn't say a foul be judged by the initial distance between players. I said that you can be so far out of position that the only way to stop a player from scoring is by committing a flagrant II and Dirk clearly was.

If Dirk managed to foul him without falling over then it would have been a good hard foul and no flagrant, even though Kirilenko would have still earned his points at the stripe.

You're right but that's a huge if.

Dirk went for the block but Kirilenko pumped and Dirk's leg clipped the side of him. When he committed the foul Dirk was behind the player and falling down. At that point he had two choices. Give up the bucket or pull him down and either get tossed or suspended for the next game.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

Penalties being tied to damages is a better analogy in civil law where the parties are going at each other directly. It's not the same thing as a situation like this where a 3rd party (the NBA) is stepping in and making a decision without any adversarial process between the 2 people involved. Also, civil law only ever involves payment of damages (e.g. a fine). This is more than a fine, obviously.

I think you are walking on some pretty shaky ground here. The NBA is certainly not a "3rd party" in this situation. And what sort of "adversarial process" do you imagine the two parties (Dirk and Kirilenko) could have betwen themselves? Frankly, I find it hard to understand your line of reasoning here. Kirilenko himself would be hard-pressed to show any damages related to an injury that resulted from a reckless action by Nowitzki. He'll still get his game checks, regardless. Now, his *team* may be able to show damages, if Kirilenko is unable to perform his duties because of injury. And that is precisely within the purview of the league to govern. That's exactly why they consider injury when handing out suspensions.

The situation here is much more like criminal law, which you mentioned. The difference is, in criminal law, a prosecutor doesn't just get to examine the situation and decide the penalty. He's got to present a case, against the evidence of the other party, and get 12 people to agree that the person involved was acting with a certain state of mind.

And that is all completely mitigated by the nature of the sporting event itself. If there were ever going to be a criminal case out of a sporting event, it would have been on that gruesome hockey incident three or four years back, where there was some suggestion that a player flat-out assaulted another. Precedent shows that there is a great deal of leeway given to competitors in sporting events.

And this is not to mention that in a criminal case the penalty is certainly not going to be something like a suspension.

I understand completely that the NBA is a dictatorship and that there's never going to be a jury, but the flagrant foul rule is a poorly designed rule. A suspension handed down at the whim of 1 or 2 individuals (Stern and Stu) without any real adversarial process should strictly reflect the blameworthiness of the player. The way this rule is set up, it often doesn't reflect that at all, especially when they're admitting that the result is an important consideration.

And yet, over time the flagrant foul rules have held up rather well. There are rare circumstances that stand out as questionable. For that matter, folks will forget about this one-game suspension for Dirk in very short order. And there is also precedent for penalties that do not necessarily reflect the motive of the player. You are familiar, I am sure, with the rule about contact above the neck and with the rule about throwing a punch regardless how sissy it may be (I'm cueing you, Jason Terry). You are also familiar, I am sure, with the rule about not leaving the bench under any circumstances, even if you may be acting to suppress an incident rather than incite it (congratulations, Spurs). Candidly, your representing the situation as being at the whim of Stu and Stern sounds like bitter grapes.

The result is CERTAINLY not an important consideration in your manslaughter analogy--manslaughter and murder have the exact same result, but have vastly different penalties because they reflect different levels of blameworthiness. That's somewhat lacking here.

You are considering the wrong analogy, by bringing murder into the discussion. It doesn't have anything to do with murder. I gave the example of a crime you can commit (drunk driving) that can have different results. If Goodrich had been stopped by police for driving erratically yet not crashing into anyone, he would have committed a misdemeanor and walked on probation. But once he crashed into someone and killed somebody, he had committed a feony and he went to prison. His motive, if you will, was the same in either case, but the penalty ended up far different. That's the point I'm making. The penalty is not always commensurate to the action or the motive.

Dirk was surely reckless, so I'm not too worked up over the one game suspension. He probably deserves some blame for being reckless. What bothers me is that they are admitting that they actually consider the extent of the injury, which is completely inappropriate to a suspension-type penalty. Whether or not Dirk was reckless has absolutely nothing to do with the extent of AK's injury.

See the point just above.

[Lor20]

oh well, we can discuss this all we want, in the end it is pretty obvious that it was on the border between flagrant 1 and 2 seeing as the refs at the time thought it was a 1 and the nba thought it was a low level two with just 1 game suspension. I think both sides can live with this.The only bad thing about it is that it had to happen that he got suspended for the houston game. we NEED to win tonight, else we will have a really hard time to get into the upper half of the playoff standings. Dirk and damp would have had a field dayagainst the short rockets. their tallest player is 6'9 now (other than the 41 year old mutombo who wont play more than 10-15 minutes). i think damp will score a lot of points off of kidd passes now. damp needs to learn not to take the ball down though after he gets it from the pass.

[Dirkadirkastan]

dirno, you do realize that this whole thing took place within about 0.3 seconds? When it happens that fast and you're falling too, you're thinking about saving your own ass, not the other guy's, and you're especially not going to do a whole bunch of arm maneuvers upwards when your reflex reaction for falling is putting your hands on the ground.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think you are walking on some pretty shaky ground here. The NBA is certainly not a "3rd party" in this situation. And what sort of "adversarial process" do you imagine the two parties (Dirk and Kirilenko) could have betwen themselves? Frankly, I find it hard to understand your line of reasoning here. Kirilenko himself would be hard-pressed to show any damages related to an injury that resulted from a reckless action by Nowitzki. He'll still get his game checks, regardless. Now, his *team* may be able to show damages, if Kirilenko is unable to perform his duties because of injury. And that is precisely within the purview of the league to govern. That's exactly why they consider injury when handing out suspensions.

Yes, the NBA is a 3rd party in the same sense that prosecutor in a criminal case is a 3rd party. "3rd party" in this context doesn't mean they don't have an interest, just that they weren't directly involved in the incident.

I didn't say any adversarial process would reasonably be available. What I'm saying is that, without an adversarial process, which, as you point out, would be unfeasible, there needs to be a much stricter standard judging the blameworthiness of the player.

Your point about the league considering injury when they hand out suspensions doesn't make much sense. If they were fining Dirk by making him compensate the Jazz directly, that'd be a valid point. But the amount of time that AK might miss isn't compensated by Dirk being suspended. The Jazz are in no way "made whole" for losing AK (which hurts them against the whole NBA) via a Dirk suspension.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And this is not to mention that in a criminal case the penalty is certainly not going to be something like a suspension.

You're not really getting the analogy I don't think. It goes like this--in civil law, the only available damages are monetary--in NBA terms, a fine. If flagrant fouls were akin to civil law, the only penalty available would be a fine. Also, in civil law, the damages are paid directly to the injured party.

In criminal law, the penalty can entail a fine, but there is also the possibility of an impingement on the person's livelihood through as a jail sentence. A suspension is a similar impingement on someone's livelihood (though obviously much less extreme). Thus, this flagrant foul thing is more like criminal law than civil law.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And yet, over time the flagrant foul rules have held up rather well. There are rare circumstances that stand out as questionable.

Doesn't really matter whether they've held up well. It's not like anyone can challenge them anyway. The NBA doesn't have to worry about public policy--they get to make their own rules and they answer to no one. Doesn't mean the rules are well-formed.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Candidly, your representing the situation as being at the whim of Stu and Stern sounds like bitter grapes.

Not possible for it to be bitter grapes when I don't even disagree with the suspension. I can agree with the result, I just don't agree with how they got there. The extent of the injury should never factor into the decision.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You are considering the wrong analogy, by bringing murder into the discussion. It doesn't have anything to do with murder. I gave the example of a crime you can commit (drunk driving) that can have different results. If Goodrich had been stopped by police for driving erratically yet not crashing into anyone, he would have committed a misdemeanor and walked on probation. But once he crashed into someone and killed somebody, he had committed a feony and he went to prison. His motive, if you will, was the same in either case, but the penalty ended up far different. That's the point I'm making. The penalty is not always commensurate to the action or the motive.

I get the analogy, and it's not inaccurate. But, in criminal law, the result is not the point. There are indeed "result" crimes (as they are called), which require a certain result (e.g. you can't commit murder unless someone actually dies, even if you try your hardest to kill someone). But the overarching concern is the intent of the perpatrator, not the result. If you kill someone with no fault whatsoever, you go scott free. If you beat the crap out of a guy in self defense, you go scott free.

Your Goodrich example only proves the point I'm trying to make. He was blameworthy because of his recklessness, inferred by the fact that he drank and then got into a vehicle. The critical concern in punishing him criminally for manslaughter isn't that someone died--it's that he was reckless in causing someone's death. The result is immaterial without first establishing the blameworthiness.

Want the proof in the pudding on how insignificant the result is compared to the blameworthiness? Attempted murder is the exact same class of felony as manslaughter, at least in Texas. So, not killing anyone at all (i.e. potentially no bad result whatsoever) when you had the intent to do so is given the same penalty as actually killing someone when you do so recklessly.

All that said, what I'm arguing here is this--what the NBA is doing here is akin to criminal law. They are seeking penalties on behalf of the injured person, and the punishment is not solely monetary. If that's going to continue to be their approach, their ultimate concern needs to be the blameworthiness of the player and not the result. As they do it now, the extent of the injury clearly infects their judgment on the blameworthiness of the player. I don't mind Dirk being suspended, but there is no way he would have been suspended if AK hadn't been hurt. And whether AK was hurt shouldn't matter.

This is all a pointless debate anyway, but I found it interesting to think about. Just thinking "aloud" I suppose.

[jamyoa]

As to the idiot who says if Josh Howard had done it we would be calling him dumb. That's innacurate U r just like Avery J. U want Josh H. to be the Mavs superstar, well Avery did say-n-the beg... of the season We want to run the offense more thru Howard, Yes he did say that. Well that failed Howard isn't a superstar caliber player yet Dirk is. That's y Dirk is an allstar every yr. Coaches recognize that-n-vote him in over Howard. Howard's problem is he takes 2 many damn jumpshots-n-misses alot. He most likely will have a good game against Houston due 2 Dirk's absence. As 4 those of u saying Kidd only gets Dirk-n-Damp involved that's b.s. If that were so y was Howard 4 of 18 against the Lakers. Terry only 2 of 8. That's not Kidds fault that's on them. I myself like Howard I just don't like the fact that he has a tendency of hogging the ball-n-misses alot of shots. It got so bad against Utah even Avery pulled him out 4 the whole 2nd. qtr. 4 Control freak Avery 2 do that that ought to tell u something. I'm just saying Howard needs 2 step up. At least Dirk has-n-has started to play like a beast. His team-mates need 2 follow. I like that foul on Ak47. 1 ? 4 Stern Y didn't u suspend Brad Miller when he intentionally fouled Harris on purpose?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by ProdigyDub

Yes, the NBA is a 3rd party in the same sense that prosecutor in a criminal case is a 3rd party. "3rd party" in this context doesn't mean they don't have an interest, just that they weren't directly involved in the incident.

The NBA is never going to be a "third party" in anything related to their product. I'm still not sure what angle you are coming from here.

Your point about the league considering injury when they hand out suspensions doesn't make much sense. If they were fining Dirk by making him compensate the Jazz directly, that'd be a valid point. But the amount of time that AK might miss isn't compensated by Dirk being suspended. The Jazz are in no way "made whole" for losing AK (which hurts them against the whole NBA) via a Dirk suspension.

And that's why it's not a civil case of Dirk against AK or the Jazz. Some cases are going to involve a guy missing a lot of games, and some cases are going to result in his missing none. The NBA is simply trying to make the punishment fit the crime, as best they can. If AK were to miss the rest of the season based on Dirk's foul, then maybe Dirk gets a little more than one game. On the other hand, if he just wiped it off and kept going, maybe Dirk doesn't even get a game. Why is it anathema to you that the result of a player's actions would be considered when meting out his punishment?

You're not really getting the analogy I don't think. It goes like this--in civil law, the only available damages are monetary--in NBA terms, a fine. If flagrant fouls were akin to civil law, the only penalty available would be a fine. Also, in civil law, the damages are paid directly to the injured party.

There are plenty of penalties besides monetary. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

In criminal law, the penalty can entail a fine, but there is also the possibility of an impingement on the person's livelihood through as a jail sentence. A suspension is a similar impingement on someone's livelihood (though obviously much less extreme). Thus, this flagrant foul thing is more like criminal law than civil law.

No, it's not more like criminal law just because because of the impingement you suggest. Are you suggesting that Dirk vilated the criminal statutes of one state or another when he committed that foul? Gimme a break. As I said before, if they didn't charge the hockey player they sure aren't going to charge Dirk, of a criminal offense.

Your Goodrich example only proves the point I'm trying to make. He was blameworthy because of his recklessness, inferred by the fact that he drank and then got into a vehicle. The critical concern in punishing him criminally for manslaughter isn't that someone died--it's that he was reckless in causing someone's death. The result is immaterial without first establishing the blameworthiness.

He could have been every bit as reckless, yet no one died. That goes to intent. And that shows how intent is certainly not necessarily commensurate with the punishment for the crime.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

dirno, you do realize that this whole thing took place within about 0.3 seconds? When it happens that fast and you're falling too, you're thinking about saving your own ass, not the other guy's, and you're especially not going to do a whole bunch of arm maneuvers upwards when your reflex reaction for falling is putting your hands on the ground.

The self preservation play would have been to swipe at the ball and, when he realized he couldn't get it, pull the arm out and break his fall with both hands. Instead he kept his arm around the neck area as he went down and broke his fall with one arm.

And yes, I realize that we’re dissecting a play that happened in less than a second but that's not unusual in the NBA. The game moves pretty fast and these players make split seconds decisions all the time. When the decision is wrong they get criticized.

[jthig32]

Man I just don't see it Dirno.

The decision to go after AK at all is certainly up for debate. You can make the case that Dirk should have just let him shoot. I can buy that. And as a result of that decision AK got hurt, so I can buy that as an argument for the penalty.

But I'm sorry, but I do not buy, at all, that Dirk could have gotten his arm dislodged there. Not at all. Those pictures show it clearly, and then when you watch the replay and see what an akward angle he was at, I think it's plain that once the commitment was made, there wasn't much Dirk could do to change it.

He was lower to the ground than AK, his arm was over his shoulder and under his neck. It was pinned. The only thing that allowed him to get away from the neck was falling further down.

If you watch the second highlight in this video, you can see just how much momentum he had, I just don't get how he was supposed to do anything but allow his arm to continue to swing. I mean that would just defy physics to pull your arm out while whipping around like that.

[FINtastic]

Why is it anathema to you that the result of a player's actions would be considered when meting out his punishment?

If this is the case, why doesn't Bowen ever get suspended for his actions? I can't believe the inconsistency of the league sometimes. I'm not really against the suspension for some of the reasons you've been arguing, but I just have a hard time understanding why the league can't apply the same rules across the board.