Undercutting NBA players

[nashtymavsfan13]

Originally Posted by Lor20

In my opinion, if there is contact and a player gets hurt because of it it should be a foul- intentional or non intentional doesn't really matter. I doubt people will start to bleed spontaneously or sprain their ankle just to go to the free throw line. i actually thought the Jho situation was a worse decision. jho gets the hand in the face so hard he's bleeding for a couple minutes and gets called on the foul? that's just ridiculous.

He got elbowed by Barbosa, and DG was called for a reaching foul AFTER the elbow by Barbosa, it was a horrible sequence. The reffing wasn't too bad though as a whole, I felt like the two calls that stood out blantantly to me were that Josh play and the Dirk play. Those just seemed like obvious calls to me.

The free throws and personal foul totals were as close as they come, the refs were solid other than those two calls, and had no impact on the outcome of the game whatsoever.

[nowhereman]

look - when a guy gets hit on the arm after he's already shot a jumper, he's going to get the and-1 if the shot goes in, regardless of if the contact had any impact on the shot. we've seen this so many times.

a simple syllogism:
Not letting a player land in the progression of his jumpshot = Making contact with a player's body during a shot attempt.
Making contact with a player's body during a shot attempt = A foul.
Not letting a player land in the progression of his jumpshot = A foul.

and in the context of the game, if they call that foul, it's potentially a 6 point swing, dirk stays in the game, mavs still have a chance. not using it as an excuse, but it's certainly a somewhat mitigating factor. as soon as that sequence finished, game was more or less decided.

Then again, when Terry gets hit foot underneath Finley on an awful 3 point attempt in the playoffs, and they blow the whistle, i'll be bitching right there with everyone else

[dude1394]

DLord weighs in again.

I think it is dirty and semi-intentional. Players put themselves in defensive position where it might happen because there is no downside. It is RARE that a foul even gets called.

There are some that I believe do it halfway on purpose. There are others that I believe do it recklessly - ie, they run at the shooter and run up under him, without caring if he will land on them.

But here is the real rubber test. I believe with the right penalties you can make it stop real fast, and I dont think anyone would disagree.

Here's how I would penalize it.

First, make an undercut like that TV-reviewable at the next dead ball even when the refs dont catch it in live action. When it is caught, the offending player gets immediately ejected with two techs and accompanying free throws, plus an added two-game suspension for the first offense. (I'd make the suspension apply to the games that the injured player picks, too. He can erase you from playing against him, or erase you from playing key games. Don't like it? Then don't do it.) If it is only caught on tape after the game, you get assessed two techs (with applicable fines, etc) and a three-game suspension without pay. (The size of the penalty is commensurate to the danger and damage you are dishing out.)

Do that, and poof, the "accidents" would magically stop happening. Players would make sure not to run under the opponent - in the same way they make sure their elbows dont swing wildly like they did in the 60s and 70s before those suspension rules were instituted.

Although the penalty might seem extreme, why are you even allowing this to be an "accidental" part of your game? You want to risk leg damage to players you are contracted to pay 10's of millions of dollars to over the next few years? Putting your high paid talent at danger makes no sense from an economic standpoint. Just make it go away, and let the players determine the games by their play rather than by a test of who can survive injuries the best.

Good thing he doesn't post on this board or he'd just be a mavs whiner. Good grief.

[George Gervin]

Chumdog you are 100% right in this thread. Of course my endorsement for your argument is now the kiss of death ( see my rep points although they did seem to increase when I tangled with Bio).

[left texas]

DLord article is very interesting. Addresses several topics on our board. Take a read if you not done so.http://dallasbasketball.com/mainArticle.asp

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

DLord weighs in again.



Good thing he doesn't post on this board or he'd just be a mavs whiner. Good grief.

Can we please penalize devin harris from falling so much? It's KILLING me to see the guy falling down before he leaves the bench!!

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we please penalize devin harris from falling so much? It's KILLING me to see the guy falling down before he leaves the bench!!

I do wonder how long his acts are going to work. Because they are becoming increasingly more obvious. He's almost Ginobliesque in his acting.

[sike]

I hate manu.

[jthig32]

*sigh*

Very disappointing to see contrarion Chum back. Seems the last loss got him very grumpy, and he's back to taking it out on the board.

When people are consistently getting hurt, the play causing the injuries stops being "a part of the game". If you want to correlate it in football, Chum, it's like the Roy Williams horsecollar rule. A lot of Cowboys fans whine about it being "a part of the game" but the reality is when players start getting hurt, it's up to the league to make it NOT part of the game. The same thing happened with the face mask and the clothesline.

The ironic thing is, it's not like we're on here whining for a new rule. IT'S ALREADY A FOUL, if you go by the rule book. If they'd simply CALL THE FOUL, that would at least be a start.

[Dirkadirkastan]

That was the most pathetic display I've seen from Chum ever.He just said the same things over and over even after people debunked them.

He said Marion's actions weren't intentional. It does NOT matter whether it's intentional. Do refs decide not to call blocking fouls or reach-in fouls when they think those are unintentional? No, they don't give a damn whether the foul was on purpose.

He said it was a bad shot. But Dirk makes a living hitting "bad" shots. That doesn't mean he's lost the right to land on the ground.

Chum is wrong all the time, but he usually has at least some saving grace to his position, some decent point he has to make. Not here. He just crashed and burned.

Then when all was lost, all he had left to say was "stop whining like a bitch". Terrible. That only works AFTER you've shown why someone is wrong; it's not an argument to support your case. "Stop whining" really means "stop defending your position", which just comes across as "I have no answer for you".

Poor show, Chum. Better luck next time.

[mffl03]

screw all this, just get david stern to step down. he's been a part of the declining sport for a couple of years now.

people I know that were getting into the sport last year, didn't care for the calls and treatment we got in the Finals.

I've stuck around for a while, maybe longer than I should.

But this is getting out of control. Protecting and making the clear way for superstars. Not defining rules or trying to with no force behind it.

Once again, if you ask me. David Stern is the root of the problem.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we please penalize devin harris from falling so much? It's KILLING me to see the guy falling down before he leaves the bench!!

I'll make you a deal, as soon as Timmah admits he actually fouled someone once in his career, I'll think about talking to devin.

[dude1394]

Seems as even though the "whiney-ass, nba league" thought that marion's "defense" was a foul. Why didn't the refs call it, since it's so easy to spot. I think the league said something like. There was no foul, Nowitzki shouldn't have taken that shot. Pathetic moron.

http://www.star-telegram.com/287/story/56638.html

Marion's foul play?

The sight of Dirk Nowitzki hitting the deck after coming down on Shawn Marion's foot sent shivers through coach Avery Johnson. No foul was called, though the Mavs asked the league to review the play.

The league office agreed it was a foul, according to team officials. The Mavs asked for similar reviews this season on plays involving Josh Howard.

[vinylstar]

i've played a lot of baseketball, and what has kept me on the court most of the time is my defense. personally, i know how to avoid getting under someone's feet when they shoot a jumper. for guys who have such an amazing gift that requires complete control of their bodies there sure is a lot of sliding under people's feet. shaq last year closing out on dirk's three and sliding under him was the most blatent offense i've ever seen...

[dude1394]

Come on, it was obviously just a bad shot on dirks part, he should never take a shot where shaq is close enough to slide under his foot.

[Usually Lurkin]

If you take a bad shot, you deserve to get hurt. Oh, that's rich. And why try to change injury inducing behaviors? It's all part of the game, and a Mav might have done it, too. And it makes so much sense, too. Almost as much sense as: if your team loses, the refs didn't do anything bad. Which is awesome in itself cause if your team wins, the only reason to say something bad about the refs is out of a sense of entitlement. Not that the game would've been unfair, because some team probably lost, which means the refs must have been perfect. Oh, and an excellent player needs an average player more than an average player needs an excellent player. Chum, you've added so much to the discussion around here the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure what kind of sense it makes, but it's something.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That was the most pathetic display I've seen from Chum ever.He just said the same things over and over even after people debunked them.

He said Marion's actions weren't intentional. It does NOT matter whether it's intentional. Do refs decide not to call blocking fouls or reach-in fouls when they think those are unintentional? No, they don't give a damn whether the foul was on purpose.

He said it was a bad shot. But Dirk makes a living hitting "bad" shots. That doesn't mean he's lost the right to land on the ground.

Chum is wrong all the time, but he usually has at least some saving grace to his position, some decent point he has to make. Not here. He just crashed and burned.

Then when all was lost, all he had left to say was "stop whining like a bitch". Terrible. That only works AFTER you've shown why someone is wrong; it's not an argument to support your case. "Stop whining" really means "stop defending your position", which just comes across as "I have no answer for you".

Poor show, Chum. Better luck next time.

You are whining like a bitch. Chum was right. The 'everyone-is-out-to-get-the-mavs' routine is tired and old. You are still complaining even after you have the best record and are favored to with the championship. What else do you want? For people to just stop and trying to defend the Mavs?

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If you take a bad shot, you deserve to get hurt. Oh, that's rich. And why try to change injury inducing behaviors? It's all part of the game, and a Mav might have done it, too. And it makes so much sense, too. Almost as much sense as: if your team loses, the refs didn't do anything bad. Which is awesome in itself cause if your team wins, the only reason to say something bad about the refs is out of a sense of entitlement. Not that the game would've been unfair, because some team probably lost, which means the refs must have been perfect. Oh, and an excellent player needs an average player more than an average player needs an excellent player. Chum, you've added so much to the discussion around here the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure what kind of sense it makes, but it's something.

What Chum is trying to get through your thick skull is that Dirk jumped out of control with his feet going in 2 different directions. So according to you the defender should be conscience of where both of Dirk's out- of- control-feet are going to land and purposely avoid them. Now Mav fans want to allow Dirk to come down even though he is out of control. Now we will have defenders having to assume where someone's foot lands even though though they are flailing and falling down..

[mary]

You are whining like a bitch. Chum was right. The 'everyone-is-out-to-get-the-mavs' routine is tired and old. You are still complaining even after you have the best record and are favored to with the championship. What else do you want? For people to just stop and trying to defend the Mavs?

What a dumbass thing to say.

As if undercutting is a topic that is only complained about by Mavs fan.

As if you would be saying the same thing if JHO stuck a foot under Ginobli.

If its a foul, its a foul.

If its a dirty play, its a dirty play.

It has nothing to do with who was involved or who has what record or who is favored to win the championship.

And calling people a "bitch" stopped being a legitimate argument in the sixth grade and everytime someone uses it, the I.Q. of this board takes a blow.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by mary

What a dumbass thing to say.

As if undercutting is a topic that is only complained about by Mavs fan.

As if you would be saying the same thing if JHO stuck a foot under Ginobli.

If its a foul, its a foul.

If its a dirty play, its a dirty play.

It has nothing to do with who was involved or who has what record or who is favored to win the championship.

And calling people a "bitch" stopped being a legitimate argument in the sixth grade and everytime someone uses it, the I.Q. of this board takes a blow.

Can we at least garee in that a dirty play has to include intent? So if a defender does not intentionally step under someone then it's not a dirty play. Correct? As far as complaining what other players do to our players I don't. The league will handle anything they view as unecessary. J-Ho is now getting a reputation of being dirty also but does that make him so?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we at least garee in that a dirty play has to include intent? So if a defender does not intentionally step under someone then it's not a dirty play. Correct? As far as complaining what other players do to our players I don't. The league will handle anything they view as unecessary. J-Ho is now getting a reputation of being dirty also but does that make him so?

How about we just "garee" it's a FOUL? Apparently even the rule book says so, but if it is, refs are ignoring it...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we at least garee in that a dirty play has to include intent? So if a defender does not intentionally step under someone then it's not a dirty play. Correct? As far as complaining what other players do to our players I don't. The league will handle anything they view as unecessary. J-Ho is now getting a reputation of being dirty also but does that make him so?

There is the ok dirty that includes jersey grabbing, elbows to the gut, moving screens, etc. that JHo is adopting from the Bruce Bowen playbook. Both are good at these tactics which should be called if seen, but are fair game if not seen by the ref. I think it's legitimate to complain when the refs seem to be ignoring these types of tactics. Then there is the not-ok dirty that includes undercutting a player, throwing elbows to the head, shoving players down, etc. that JHo hasn't gotten from the Bruce Bowen/Shaq/and others' playbook. Those plays are meant to gain advantage at the expense of (or in disregards of) the safety of others. Occasionally a Mav will do something like this (Terry's punch to Fin's groin, Stacks flying foul on Shaq), but it's not part of their identity as a player. I'm glad when those fouls are called, and I think it's legitimate to complain every time they are missed.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

You are whining like a bitch. Chum was right. The 'everyone-is-out-to-get-the-mavs' routine is tired and old. You are still complaining even after you have the best record and are favored to with the championship. What else do you want? For people to just stop and trying to defend the Mavs?

lessee - if you lose, you can't complain because you are shifting blame, but if you win, you can't complain because it hasn't affected your teams winning percentage? Brilliant! Chum, you are a professor, and here's George Gervin, your apt pupil.

[Mavdog]

this is clearly a foul and there is no way to characterize it differently.

when an offensive player leaves their feet they are judged to be fouled if a defensive player moves into the space where they should land.

here's the rule: A player may continue to move after gaining a guarding position in the path of an opponent provided he is not moving directly or obliquely toward his opponent when contact occurs. A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air.

the only question is if the defensive player had intent to move under the offensive player. if the ref believes the answer is yes, a flagrant (unnecessary agressiveness) should be called. that would fit the definition of a "dirty play" plain and simple.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

What Chum is trying to get through your thick skull is that Dirk jumped out of control with his feet going in 2 different directions. So according to you the defender should be conscience of where both of Dirk's out- of- control-feet are going to land and purposely avoid them. Now Mav fans want to allow Dirk to come down even though he is out of control. Now we will have defenders having to assume where someone's foot lands even though though they are flailing and falling down..

IF after the fact the referee determines that dirk caused it to happen then no suspension would occur. If however the referee(videotaped) determines that player A wasn't allowed to come down because player B(owen) put his foot under him, then suspension occurs.

I don't want the refs to call anything unless they clearly see it (which they seemingly cannot do, as they do NOT call that particular foul very often). I'd much rather that type of call be done after the fact and after reviewing tape.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we at least garee in that a dirty play has to include intent? So if a defender does not intentionally step under someone then it's not a dirty play. Correct? As far as complaining what other players do to our players I don't. The league will handle anything they view as unecessary. J-Ho is now getting a reputation of being dirty also but does that make him so?

No...I won't agree with that. Intent is irrelevant in this situation imo. A guy goes up to foul someone and hits him in the head. His intent may not have been to hit him in the head but he does, flagrant. Intent has nothing to do with this, keeping players from shortening their careers is what I'm posting about.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

lessee - if you lose, you can't complain because you are shifting blame, but if you win, you can't complain because it hasn't affected your teams winning percentage? Brilliant! Chum, you are a professor, and here's George Gervin, your apt pupil.

Sounds like a madrassa going on.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

What Chum is trying to get through your thick skull is that Dirk jumped out of control with his feet going in 2 different directions. So according to you the defender should be conscience of where both of Dirk's out- of- control-feet are going to land and purposely avoid them. Now Mav fans want to allow Dirk to come down even though he is out of control. Now we will have defenders having to assume where someone's foot lands even though though they are flailing and falling down..

I get the feeling you didn't even see the play. Dirk came down in the exact spot he took off from. The shot wasn't even borderline out of control.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

here's the rule: A player may continue to move after gaining a guarding position in the path of an opponent provided he is not moving directly or obliquely toward his opponent when contact occurs. A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air.

It sounds like it doesn't matter if the player is moving forward or not. Or sideways, or backward, or in two directions at once. To move into his path is a foul.

[eleoson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Pursuant to my last post...good jumpshots won't result in feet underneath you. Heavily contested shots most probably will. I don't know why Dirk shot that ball. Do you? It looked like a God-awful shot as it was happening. In fact, it was so bad it looked like a shot-clock-beater.

But it wasn't. Why did Dirk shoot that three in that situation?

If the offense gets off good jumpshots, they don't have to worry about feet at their ankles.

That's easy...Dirk knew that Marion's aggressiveness will initiate contact and would have given him 3 chances at the line...He predicted well with the contact, but not with the refs not calling for a foul.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by eleoson

That's easy...Dirk knew that Marion's aggressiveness will initiate contact and would have given him 3 chances at the line...He predicted well with the contact, but not with the refs not calling for a foul.

I doubt players try to draw fouls with their ankles.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Can we at least garee in that a dirty play has to include intent? So if a defender does not intentionally step under someone then it's not a dirty play. Correct? As far as complaining what other players do to our players I don't. The league will handle anything they view as unecessary. J-Ho is now getting a reputation of being dirty also but does that make him so?

I'd say here that officials aren't concerned with intent when it comes to flagrant foul calls, to the best of my knowledge. They're concerned with whether the contact was *excessive*, not whether the offender intended to excessively contact the other guy.

The issue here is not intent, but effect. The effect of undercutting is to quite possibly injure a player, possibly for an extended period of time. It seems to me that the penalty ought to be commiserate with the effect.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

here's the rule: A player may continue to move after gaining a guarding position in the path of an opponent provided he is not moving directly or obliquely toward his opponent when contact occurs. A player is never permitted to move into the path of an opponent after the opponent has jumped into the air.

give it up to MD for bringing pertinent info to the table.

It's a foul everytime Bowen does it, it's a foul when the Heat were doing it, and it was a foul when Marion did it on Sunday. The problem here is fundamentally a lack of enforcement, IMHO.

The question is...what can the Mavs do to get it enforced?

I submit that the best thing the Mavs can do to get this enforced is to get caught doing it. Go ankle hunting on Mike Bibby and Kevin Martin tonight. Pay a reward to whomever causes Bibby or Martin to turn an ankle in tonight's game. Make Stu Jackson and David Stern shout it from the rafter tops that undercutting a player is a foul and that said foul shall be enforced.

This isn't about "stooping to their level" much less is it about desiring to hurt other players. Instead it's about protecting J-Ho and Dirk. The only way to protect them is to force the league to enforce the rule.

[dude1394]

Hear, hear alex. Ankle hunting would take care of a bunch of stuff it would seem imo.

Mainly get other teams to stop doing it to the mavs.

[rabbitproof]

A lot of pwnage going on.

[Some Guy]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I submit that the best thing the Mavs can do to get this enforced is to get caught doing it. Go ankle hunting on Mike Bibby and Kevin Martin tonight. Pay a reward to whomever causes Bibby or Martin to turn an ankle in tonight's game. Make Stu Jackson and David Stern shout it from the rafter tops that undercutting a player is a foul and that said foul shall be enforced.

This isn't about "stooping to their level" much less is it about desiring to hurt other players. Instead it's about protecting J-Ho and Dirk. The only way to protect them is to force the league to enforce the rule.

If it is wrong for Marion/Bowen/Shaq to do it, then it is wrong for the Mavs to do it.

You can't say "it is okay if I've got a good reason". Bowen has a good reason for doing it too.

I agree that something should be done, but trying to hurt completely unrelated people isn't it.

[Flacolaco]

Knowing this team of gimpy ankles, they'd try to do it to someone else, and they would end up the ones that get hurt when the guy lands on them.

[mffl03]

If the NFL and NHL try to protect their players as a first priority, so should the NBA

[purplefrog]

In principle, I am against "ankle-hunting" but these are the facts:

1) The rulebooks says it is a foul.
2) The officials rarely call it.
3) It is occurring with a high frequency.

IMO, this means that is only a matter of time before someone (not necessarily a Mav) suffers an injury that either puts them out of the playoffs or ends their career. This is bad for the NBA, especially given the facts. This isn't a Mavs issue, or a Suns' issue, or A Spurs issue, it is a league issue and the NBA execs need to move quickly. No ifs, ands, or buts...they need to move before the playoffs begin. If ankle-hunting brings more attention to this problem then by all means go after it. Sometimes you have to take extreme measures in order to get action.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Some Guy

If it is wrong for Marion/Bowen/Shaq to do it, then it is wrong for the Mavs to do it.

Obviously.

Equally obvious is that if it's not wrong for M/B/S to do it, then it's not wrong for the Mavs to do it.

So, if Mavs' opponents are unintentionally doing things which carry no penalty and hinder the mavs, then the Mavs ought to unintentionally do the same things so as to level the playing field.

.............

Undercutting, in my view, has to be a flagrant one (maybe two). Get it called once, and it'll get calld twice. Get it called twice and defenders will think twice about unintentionally undercutting a jumpshooter.

.............

(this makes me wonder....has anyone ever read a story of where, say, Manu Ginobolli missed a game because Bruce Bowen unintentionally undercut him during a practice session? I can't think of one story along these lines. Perhaps these guys never close out on defenders in practice?)