Re: Just a thought -

["hironaka@xxxxxxxxx"<hironaka@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ---------- Initial message -----------
> 
> From    : owner-celtics@igtc.com
> To      : celtics@igtc.com
> Cc      : 
> Date    : Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:27:48 -0400
> Subject : Re: Just a thought -
> 
> 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
> 
> 

I don't think it had to be a flagrant foul, although it 
was clearly more aggressive in intent than Vin's 
subsequent "flagrant"... which raises the question of 
partiality. 

But I fully agree with Cecil that it couldn't be a 
borderline foul. Imagine what the NBA would be like if 
players could take a midair "charge" like that with no 
fear of an infraction? 

It is not merely possible but EASY to slam someone off 
balance in the air and make it look like "incidental" 
contact, because your hands are in an innocent position. 
Where the defenders hands are located at the time has 
nothing to do with how reckless midair contact of any 
kind is.

I think this incident of ref error was so over-the-top, 
that it may result in some good for the balance of the 
year. Its akin to a major hazing incident gone bad, as 
opposed to a full season of routine minor bullying that 
goes unreprimanded. What may have started out as a joke 
these refs knew they could get away with, ended up 
costing Paul Pierce his front teeth.

It is at least possible that the authority figures (the 
refs) will look at the game and realize league-wide that, 
hey, maybe enough is enough. My wife thinks Pierce should 
actually sue the league to make his point, and I can 
almost see where she's coming from. (Of course, women 
probably care more about their teeth.) It would make for 
an interesting trial. The video evidence would seem 
pretty damning, certainly even without a Tommy voiceover, 
because it wasn't just that particular non-call but a 
game long pattern of even more glaring bad calls. 

But I still wish the Celtics had taken care of business 
first and won the damn game, rather than let it get to 
them. The game was called pretty fairly in the final six 
minutes, I thought. Or in any case, it wasn't a factor in 
our ultimate loss/choke.

Joe H.

-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?