In Monday night's upset win, the Atlanta Hawks got physical with Kevin Garnett, which is a good thing. Zaza Pachulia was giving him a little more than he could handle and Garnett gave him a good solid forearm. Ok, no problem there. Good, hard fought game has both teams kind of feisty, I've got no issues there. What happened next though, really bothers me.
As Pachulia got in Garnett's face, teammates and refs stepped in to break up the potential fight. In the process, referee Ed Rush grabbed Garnett to pull him away from trouble. In response, Garnett clearly shoves Rush and pulls away, heading back toward the tussle. Somehow, the NBA has deemed this action not worthy of a suspension. If there has ever been a sign that the league, and Stern in particular, want to guarantee certain teams move forward in the playoffs, this is it. Boston falling to the lowly (and under .500) Hawks in the first round? Can't happen, the league needs the Celtics in the Finals or at least in an Eastern Conference Final with the Pistons.
The rules clearly dictate that any intentional and aggressive contact with an official is automatic grounds for suspension. How can the league give this leeway but not have been flexible last year with the Suns/Spurs situation? It just seems wrong to be so inconsistent, especially when this case is so cut and dry.
Someone please explain this.
As Pachulia got in Garnett's face, teammates and refs stepped in to break up the potential fight. In the process, referee Ed Rush grabbed Garnett to pull him away from trouble. In response, Garnett clearly shoves Rush and pulls away, heading back toward the tussle. Somehow, the NBA has deemed this action not worthy of a suspension. If there has ever been a sign that the league, and Stern in particular, want to guarantee certain teams move forward in the playoffs, this is it. Boston falling to the lowly (and under .500) Hawks in the first round? Can't happen, the league needs the Celtics in the Finals or at least in an Eastern Conference Final with the Pistons.
The rules clearly dictate that any intentional and aggressive contact with an official is automatic grounds for suspension. How can the league give this leeway but not have been flexible last year with the Suns/Spurs situation? It just seems wrong to be so inconsistent, especially when this case is so cut and dry.
Someone please explain this.
No comments:
Post a Comment