World Peace elbows Harden, gets ejected

I don't think Harden wanted anything but to get in Artest's way and stop him from celebrating. Artest knew this and went to elbow him out of the way and unfortunately got him in the head. That's what made this the Second Holocaust.

But we agree, as I noted back on the first page, and as you correctly note his teammates in Bynum and Kobe have done far worse by committing intentionally directed malicious attacks on specific players. Not to mention former teammate Fisher's hit on Scola. Nor the other times Kobe has hit people in the face on purpose. (Or...hey, when Artest hit Barea and Odom!)

Apparently it's evidence you're getting paid by someone to suggest there's a difference between singling out a player to deliberately attack and being a nutjob who reacts in the heat of the moment.

I hadn't known it's okay to elbow someone in the throat because they drove the lane or shove a player to the ground because you wanted to send a message but elbowing a guy off you was an actual crime that demands scorched earth until this thread and the corresponding media masturbation.

And yet there's all this whining about how the refs won't let them just "play the game" like in the 80's and 90's...

Typing out Artest is easier, all the letters needed are on one side of the keyboard.

This actually makes me think maybe the punishment just isn't strict enough for the hard fouls that could result to big injuries.

Ditto. It still boggles me what the league's standards are for determining the length of the suspension.
Even though I may have implied in this thread that Artest's suspension is fair, I came to that conclusion just based on past league instances.

As I watch the video I just keep wondering why harden would step to the left and make sure he got in front of artest. I feel he got what he wanted, an ejection

I agree with Andrew's observation on this one that the initial contact between Artest and Harden is incidental but what Harden kept doing after isn't. Harden kept fighting for position against Artest, that would have been fine if OKC was on defense but they weren't and it goes against basic basketball knowledge that you would try to lose and keep off your defender (Artest) in order to receive an inbounds pass which what the situation was after that dunk by Artest.
I view the sidestep of Harden as creating space between him and Westbrook to avoid interception of the inbounds pass because The G.O.A.T was near.

I don't think Harden wanted anything but to get in Artest's way and stop him from celebrating. Artest knew this and went to elbow him out of the way and unfortunately got him in the head.

You say that as though Harden's head just happened to get in the way. If Artest had done what he later tried to pretend he was doing - elbow Harden in the motion of beating his chest - it would've been fine, but he quite clearly raises his elbow to head height. Whether he was aware it was at the same height as Harden's head isn't really relevant. Continuing down the court beating his chest doesn't make it look like much of an accident either.

You say mens rea is important, but in this case it's like trying to get away with murder on the basis that you were only trying to shoot the guy's ear off. True or not, it hardly makes a difference.

Did you see what I quoted there or even the link I posted?
A hit on the throat is much worse than a hit on the head because the throat has no protection. A direct strike to the throat is even illegal in UFC or MMA? as compared to elbows or punches to the head.

Nice list. Of course, every situation would require some kind of analysis of the circumstances, determine whether it was intentional, etc (and I wasn't able to find many of them on youtube). But it all makes me more or less come to this conclusion:

This actually makes me think maybe the punishment just isn't strict enough for the hard fouls that could result to big injuries.

I thought the league has been more strict about those kind of incidents, especially after 2004. Apparently intentionally elbowing someone in the face/head is in most cases not any worse than stepping on the court line when you're not in the game, for example. But that's another story.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA! Did Harden flop lol(asks Artest Fans)?



On more serious note...

Stern: World Peace's past weighed in suspension

Stern said during a conference call that he took many things into account, including World Peace's numerous past troubles. World Peace, who changed his name from Ron Artest, received an 86-game suspension in 2004 - the longest ban for an on-court incident in NBA history - for jumping into the stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills in the Detroit suburbs to fight fans.
"In fact if it had been somebody that got tangled up and threw an errant elbow, would that have been different than this? You bet it would have been," Stern said.
"It's really very serious stuff and it does take in account the fact that the perpetrator is who he is and has the record that he has, and this called for in our view a very stiff penalty and we think that seven games, which only includes one regular-season game, is such a stiff penalty."
Stern also was clear that he didn't buy World Peace's explanation that he accidentally struck Harden, who was cleared to play Wednesday but held out of the Thunder's season finale.
"I believe that it was recklessly thrown and I believe that in looking at the replays again and again that he should have known that James was up against him, and some would argue that he had to have known," Stern said.

Stern was vague and occasionally defensive when asked how he decided on the length of the ban. He called the process "some combination of art and science."
"We look at the previous penalties, we look at who's involved in the altercation, we do take into account the seriousness of the injury and a variety of whatever else is in the atmosphere, and then it just becomes my job to decide what it should be," Stern said.
Stern said he felt that seven games now, knowing only one of them will be in the regular season, was a move severe penalty than if it came during another part of the season.
"I think the seven was larger than some people might have thought just from an elbow, and I think that in many cases people who thought that this was so horrible that it should result in a lifetime ban," he said. "But at the end of the day, I have to close the door and say, `OK, what is justice here and what's fairness here,' and I came up with seven."

Continuing down the court beating his chest doesn't make it look like much of an accident either.

Okay, but nobody's arguing it's an accident.

You say mens rea is important, but in this case it's like trying to get away with murder on the basis that you were only trying to shoot the guy's ear off. True or not, it hardly makes a difference.

You're aware that there are differing charges such as first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, etc. right?

Continuing down the court beating his chest doesn't make it look like much of an accident either.

Okay, but nobody's arguing it's an accident.

You're arguing that the impact to the head is an accident.

You're aware that there are differing charges such as first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, etc. right?

Sure, but you're still going away for a fair time. Not to mention it being basically impossible to prove that you were trying to shoot the guy in the ear instead of the head.

And your argument that Artest shouldn't receive a particularly long suspension based on the length of previous similar suspensions assumes that those suspensions were fair, rather than too low.

You're arguing that the impact to the head is an accident.

No, I'm not.

Not to mention it being basically impossible to prove that you were trying to shoot the guy in the ear instead of the head.

That's not what you're trying to do when making a defense in court.

And your argument that Artest shouldn't receive a particularly long suspension based on the length of previous similar suspensions assumes that those suspensions were fair, rather than too low.

So what's the objective true length of suspensions for flagrant fouls?

Because we can either look at precedent in which until this incident no player has ever been suspended for more than five games for a foul, even in worse cases, in order to set some kind of clear known parameters, or you're going to have to argue the league should have a completely arbitrary process for deciding how many games so Artest gets 17 games for this, Kobe gets 356 games for arguing with a ref, Bynum gets one game for shoving an ice pick into Dirk Nowitzki's eye, etc.

No, I'm not.

So you're arguing that he intentionally elbowed Harden in the head?

So what's the objective true length of suspensions for flagrant fouls?

There isn't one. There can't be one, because different people are going to have different opinions about how severe any given incident is.

Because we can either look at precedent in which until this incident no player has ever been suspended for more than five games for a foul, even in worse cases, in order to set some kind of clear known parameters, or you're going to have to argue the league should have a completely arbitrary process for deciding how many games so Artest gets 17 games for this, Kobe gets 356 games for arguing with a ref, Bynum gets one game for shoving an ice pick into Dirk Nowitzki's eye, etc.

Or you could argue that the league has been more lenient than you would prefer in prior cases. Much the same as the people in the awards thread listing their predictions and their picks. It's quite possible to want Artest to be rubbed out for the playoffs whilst simultaneously acknowledging that the NBA won't treat it as seriously as that. This only becomes a problem if you accept the lengths of previous suspensions. Yes, the NBA is going to, most likely, remain consistent in its interpretation of such incidents, but that doesn't mean people can't disagree with their interpretation.

So you're arguing that he intentionally elbowed Harden in the head?

Nope.

There isn't one. There can't be one, because different people are going to have different opinions about how severe any given incident is. ... Yes, the NBA is going to, most likely, remain consistent in its interpretation of such incidents, but that doesn't mean people can't disagree with their interpretation.

Great, and my opinion is that we should follow the NBA's precedent of five games or less for flagrant fouls because NBA fans are not going to like the alternative ever increasing escalation of bans. So why are you complaining again?

So you're arguing that he intentionally elbowed Harden in the head?

Nope.

So...it wasn't intentional, and it wasn't an accident. What?

Great, and my opinion is that we should follow the NBA's precedent of five games or less for flagrant fouls because NBA fans are not going to like the alternative ever increasing escalation of bans. So why are you complaining again?

In what way does it logically follow that suspensions would constantly escalate? Arbitrarily limiting it to ten games is no different to arbitrarily limiting it to five. Or fifteen. Or whatever.

The AFL has a pretty good system. They set out distinct criteria, each worth a certain number of points, and the length of suspension/amount of fine is determined by how many points you have. There's various rules about points carrying over, prior records, etc. as well. It's quite clear exactly how many weeks you're going to get for any given incident, so there's none of this arbitrary crap going on.

So...it wasn't intentional, and it wasn't an accident. What?

Sometimes, it's worth reading a persons posts if you want to know what they're saying.

I tried that. It clearly didn't work.

SUSPEND CHANDLER FOR LIFE!

phpBB [video]

https://twitter.com/#!/MettaWorldPeace/ ... 2003665920