The NBA’s technical foul/suspension scale is fine. It deters players that are approaching the limit from acting like three-year olds and let’s the officials keep the games moving with fewer tantrums. But of course, any time big stars like Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard risk suspension, there has to be a problem with the rules. So the NBA will of course “review” the policy in question.
Do you know who I am?
If there’s one thing we can’t have, it’s Kobe having to limit his in-game tantrums because of the risk of suspensions and technical fouls. Instead, officials have been paralyzed by fear and instead are letting Kobe scream and curse at them without repercussions.
I couldn't have possibly committed a foul
Both Howard and Bryant have had a technical foul rescinded by the all-seeing eye, Stu Jackson. The fouls would have been the sixth for each respective player, putting them both one technical foul away from a one-game suspension. Either player being forced to sit out a game after another tantrum or flagrant elbow would be bad for both NBA rating and their image.
Really? A foul? Called on me?
The NBA has had a hard enough time overcoming their thuggish image (the 2008-2009 Denver Nuggets haven’t helped that) but are now in trouble of becoming a league of whiny little girls, lead by the L.A. Lakers and San Antonio Spurs. Some NBA games look more like a broadway show or a UEFA Champions League match because of all the theatre and acting that is permitted.
Kobe crying, again
You called a what? A foul?
If anything, I say the technical foul threshold should be reduced. Drop it to five. Maybe after the whiners like Kobe Bryant have to sit out a playoff game or two, they’ll realize that if they just play the game like grown ass men they’ll get to stay on the court and not penalize their teammates and organizations. If there’s anything that needs to be reviewed it’s the flagrant foul rules and Stu Jackson’s involvement in the NBA.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
5 Comments So Far
2:48 PM
I didn’t realize that both rescinded fouls would have put them close to the limit. Great point.
I think the other side of the story is the refs themselves. There seems to be no set standard for what gets you a tech. In baseball you cannot argue balls and strikes, everyone knows it, the umps give you some leeway, but will toss you immediately for it. I think the NBA should institute a similar rule for fouls. Tell all the players that there is no arguing fouls. You do it, your’e getting a T. Let players and coaches ask refs to go to instant replay, let them ask a ref to ask for help on possession calls, and that’s it.
There is no reason that a player needs to have the right to lobby a ref on a call. Fouls are judgement calls just like balls and strikes. If the lobbying has any effect on officials, then the NBA has a much bigger problem.
6:17 PM
I guess they technically can argue balls and strikes, but all you’ll get is a one-way ticket on the ejection train. I think the NBA refs did get instructions to take a hard line on players “showing up” officials and “taunting” opposing players. It lead to an insane amount of technical fouls because there are so many crybabies on the Lakers and Spurs and a few other teams so that was relaxed quickly.
I’ll give the NBA refs a pass regarding the Flagrant fouls, because I think the technical fouls are pretty cut & dry. But the Flagrant issue is almost 100% judgmental, that’s how the rule book is written. And as you noted, that’s an equation for disaster.
6:19 PM
I like that idea Joe.
Its funny, the NBA instituted that rule with regards to going onto the court when they overreacted to the Artest melee – you cross that line from the bench, you are suspended, period (see Steve Nash incident). It seems they need to relax that rule a bit, and institute a no exceptions rule for arguing with the refs.
There are far too many players, at least one on each team who think they have never committed a foul in their life.
8:25 PM
I agree that the bench rule needs to be relaxed. There is no room for intent, and I am not even talking about Stoudemire. What if one player leaves the bench to pull back a teammate that is leaving the bench to get involved in a fight? Isn’t that something the NBA should welcome?
The NHL has a third man in rule and that seems to work fine. The NBA should have a modified version: You leave the bench and touch, speak to, or otherwise engage a player on the court, and you get double the suspension or penalty they get.
@Nate, I am not sure there could be a flagrant rule that was not somewhat subjective. The fastbreak fouls are usually pretty easy, but some aren’t. For instance, I really think that I could reasonably have given Kobe a flagrant for the elbow he delivered to Nelson in OT of game 5, but the refs didn’t even call any foul on that.
As far as balls and strikes, vs arguing with NBA refs, I think the NBA version is more forgiving. At least with a tech you get to keep playing
3:01 PM
@Ryan
I think they had that no-tolerance policy for arguing at the start of this season, but when technicals were being handed out left and right they decided to lay off, instead of forcing the player to learn.
@Joe
You’re definitely right about subjectivity being a necessary element. But I think there are certain acts (ie. closed fist or elbow to a players head away from the ball) that can be an automatic Flagrant 1. At the very least, I would like to see some hard and fast rules outlined for the suspensions and fines. I think that’s an even greater area of confusion, the post-game review by the league office.
Comment on This Article:
HTML is disabled, but URLs will be auto-linked. Your e-mail address won't be published. Comments will be deleted if commenters leave a keyword instead of a name in the name field, if sites linked in the URL field are commercial in nature and not related to the sports world, or if the comment simply doesn't add value to the discussion. No free trips to PageRank Nirvana. (Read about commenter avatars.)