Re: Just a thought -

[Cecil <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I disagree.  When a player is airborne and in the act of shooting, if there
is contact such as that by Stoudemire, a foul must be called.  Of course
anyone who drives to the hoop will have all the inertia heading in that
direction, but there is no way it could be an offensive foul that far
underneath unless the he flails his arm or wards off the defender in some
manner.  But Stoudemire came across and committed the act of hitting the
shooter.

It was a foul.

Cecil


----- Original Message -----
From: <Douglas342@AOL.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Just a thought -


> In a message dated 12/12/2002 4:48:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dforant1@nycap.rr.com writes:
>
> > No contact? You must be kidding. Pierce went up head first and came down
> > head first. He was definitely body bumped. Please explain this
phenomena?
> >
>
>      Well, I have never pretended to know how to ref the game, but I
watched
> the play too and am not sure that I saw a foul.  Two guys come together in
> motion, one falls down.  Sure he was bumped, but not every bump is a foul.
> The fact that PP went down hard and was hurt was, as another poster said,
> just the way things happen sometimes.  Are we saying that if someone falls
> wrong and gets hurt, it's a foul?  But if he staggers and doesn't fall, it
> isn't a foul?  If a star falls hard, it's a foul, but if it's a rookie, it
> isn't?  I imagine that the tape of that play will find its way onto the
tape
> that each team of refs gets each week.  Veterans of this list will
remember
> the fine article on refs that Josh posted a few years back and remember
that
> the league distributes a tape of controversial plays each week for review
and
> discussion by the refs.
>      So I can give the refs a pass on that one, I guess, but certainly NOT
on
> the "hard foul" against Baker.  A foul?  Maybe, but when behemoths
collide,
> s**t happens.  That was no hard foul UNLESS the NBA has now added "hard
foul"
> as a new and separate transgression, different from a "flagrant foul."
Maybe
> I ought to say that what Baker did wasn't a flagrant foul.
>     But hey!  I predicted 43 wins this year instead of 49, but the team is
> exactly on pace with last year.  I'm surprised, but not complaining.  And
> this team has been awfully lucky with injuries.  The NBA has evolved to a
> "two stars and 12 other guys" league, and if one of your stars gets hurt,
> it's trouble.  Ask the Lakers.  As long as PP and AW are OK, we have a
shot.