Re: Kenny & Battie

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

> From: "Cecil Wright" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>
>
> Was Kenny's technicals deserved last night?  I didn't think the one called
> on Battie for hanging on the rim was, nor was Antoine's from a few games
> ago.
>
> I could understand if the player was making a blatant attempt to rub salt 
> in
> the wound, but when the guy dunks with 2 hands, pulls himself up on the 
> rim
> a little bit and then jumps to the floor, I do not believe that should
> constitute a technical.

Had a chance to watch the game on tape after viewing bits and pieces live,
  so I looked for the reasons behind Kenny's techs.  I don't know what 
precisely led to the initial one, though the officiating was bad (though 
it's been worse) and Kenny was getting ridden hard by Anthony, but the 
second came when Kenny was on the bench and, shall we say, gestured, in 
the general direction of at least one ref.  The exact gesture was 
difficult to make out, due to my disappointingly small TV screen, but it 
seemed clear at least one finger was extended.

IMO, a player is always going to get T'ed up when he flips the bird to the 
zebras.  I don't blame Kenny, though.  Would have been wiser to choose 
another form of expression, but there you go.  As for the technicals for 
hanging on the rim, I thought they were ludicrous.  Yeah, it's a rule, but 
it's a foolishly conceived one: firstly, guys are undoubtedly concerned 
about landing correctly after a dunk, not to mention the fact that nobody 
gives a flying fig if some guy hangs on the rim.  Maybe it's about the 
risk of equipment breakage, but you might think to build of stronger 
materials or have a couple of replacement hoops around.  Didn't Daryl 
Dawkins teach us anything?

It's akin to the woes in college football.  My team regularly gets called 
for "celebrating" in the end zone (and they get to the end zone a lot) for 
the most innocuous of displays.  Football's a whole other story, though, 
as is the NCAA's hypocrisy when it comes to "showboating" rules.  Some 
rules in the NBA, though, are designed strictly to give respect (or, more 
accurately, punish disrespect) to the officials.  Why?  I mean, I 
understand that, in the large scale of things, the man or woman reffing 
the game is a human being, deserves basic respect, freedom from being 
assaulted, and all that claptrap, but I don't see the harm in "allowing" a 
player to demonstrate frustration and derision at the officials.  It *is* 
disrespectful, but, imo, many times the refs don't deserve much respect, 
and that's not the point anyway -- why can't Kenny Anderson or anyone else 
express displeasure with the refs?  Even the scenarios where the coaches 
or players get fined for lambasting the officials after the game -- who 
cares?  Do they worry about the league's image so much that they must 
restrict speech?  Do they think that this may lead, on a slippery slope, 
to fans actually (*gasp*) thinking the NBA isn't perfect?  Heavens!

"Expect a loss"?  Huh?  Um, no thanks.  I happen to realize that the team 
is 13-7, third in the division, and a lot more likely to beat Charlotte 
(11-11) than not.  I'm not saying records make the team, or that a 11-11 
team can't be better than a 13-7 team, especially on any given day, but I'
d prefer to make the .500 team prove it to me first, before I rolled over 
like Travis Knight in the paint, and settled into a fetal position.  
Especially if that 13-7 team won the last eight out of nine.

Bird
(The Celtic "Tird")