Interesting theory. Logically consistent. I think my explanation is simpler and makes fewer assumptions. But you could be right.
@heypartner Not trying to argue. But I think Kiki has no reason to blatantly lie. I mean the video is there for everyone to see. Why would he say something that is clearly not true. Wouldn't that be worse than the "complication" you think he is trying to avoid? My take is that he might mean that Griffin was inbound when he passed in front of MDA. Watch the video again. He stepped out of bound AFTER he bumped/hit/brushed/whatever MDA. This interpretation can be established although not 100% clear. (To use the instant replay language, the evidence is not conclusive enough to overturn the ruling.) So Kiki's statement could be technically correct that at the instant of contact, Griffin was inbound. That said, Griffin is clearly intentional in making contact and should have been given some sort of punishment, especially with his history.
It is because otherwise players could stand out of bounds to gain an advantage. Either being deceptive or by avoiding 3 seconds for instance. Or do get around a defender on the baseline. In Blake's case it's hard to argue he was getting an advantage, but it's also clear that he intentionally was running out of bounds with intent so technically it is illegal and should have resulted in a loss of possession.
Here’s what I found in the NBA rule book: Section XV—Offensive Player Out-of-Bounds An offensive player shall not leave the playing area of the court without returning immediately and cannot repeatedly leave and re-enter the court. EXCEPTION: (1) injury, (2) inbounding the ball on a throw-in and (3) any other unusual circumstance. PENALTY: Loss of ball. The ball is awarded to the opposing team at the point of inter- ruption but no nearer to the baseline than the foul line extended. I don’t think Griffin violated that rule, at least, since he was out of bounds for a fraction of a second.
Again it all depends on what you are doing. If you go out of bounds to reset the timer on 3-seconds even if it's a fraction of a second - that's a violation. Blake was out of bounds for more than a second. But the issue is why did he go out of bounds. It was not accidental. it was intentional in order to have an altercation with an opposing coach.
lulz, that was just an exercise in trying to guess...just like you did. Do you really believe yours? I'm sure my exercise in guessing is wrong, albeit it only makes one assumption--league doesn't want to say Blake is technically allowed to run into a coach who is out of the box. The simpler explanation to me is because they chose not to suspend based solely on "no harm", and I don't know why they misused a very strictly defined sports word. I give up guessing why they do stuff like that. But I firmly believe Kiki measured whether to use the word or not, if it was indeed an official statement. And as you can see with Easy's explanation, his use has fans thinking he's actually, technically inbounds. And as time goes, it will be remembered as Griffin was inbounds ... thus fulfilling even my first proposed, friendlier explanation. He's out of bounds at point of contact.
We all knew durvasa was going to come back and gloat...as if a judgment call by the league somehow confirmed his "logic", lol.
Well obviously now we can see that your problem is that you don’t read very well... A technical foul shall be assessed for unsportsmanlike tactics such as: (1) Disrespectfully addressing an official (2) Physically contacting an official (3) Overt actions indicating resentment to a call (4) Use of profanity (5) A coach entering onto the court without permission of an official (6) A deliberately-thrown elbow or any attempted physical act with no con-tact involved
Except I already acknowledged even after the no suspension ruling that I was mistaken about thinking lack of intention was more probable initially. I can, and frequently do, admit when I’m wrong. Did anyone here admit they may have overreacted with the seriousness of his Blake’s “elbow” based on MDA’s angry response? Even though the league judged it really wasn’t a big deal? Nope, not a one that I see.
Very well. But neither Doc or MDA was called with a tech. Obviously, the league is lax in enforcing that rule. If a Rockets player brushed by Doc on the way down the floor while he was on the court and got in trouble for it, your complaint of double standards might have more merit.
Does the rule book say anything about intentionality? It says a player must immediately get back on the floor, and the player can’t repeatedly go out of bounds. Blake’s crosses out of bounds, we know why he did it, but he did not stay there. No violation.
Maybe. Although his imprecise word choice doesn’t help him all that much, IMO. All we are going on here is a quote in a tweet. I don’t see much point in scrutinizing the word choice like this. Their rationale is clear enough. They considered the contact minimal and they think Griffin was close enough to in bounds to not warrant penalty. We can agree or disagree with that, but that’s their judgment. Best way to protest it is to find comparable instances where the league did punish the player. Since ultimately all we can demand is that the league is consistent in how they enforce the rules.
Welp, I was wrong. Wonder if the media onslaught and the prepetuation of the "secret passage" story contributed to the decision.
Only problem i see with that rule is there was no reason for him to run out-of-bounds he should be fined and suspended at least for 1 game.
I said "technically." I watched the video frame by frame. (The resolution wasn't very good. I am assuming that the league official has a better view.) Griffin was going out of bounds right at the point of contact, and his foot was in the air when he passed MDA. His foot landed out of bounds in front of MDA but his body had passed the coach at that time. This is the pic you post in the OP. It shows the moment of contact and his foot is still not touching the floor. In general basketball principles, you are not out of bounds until your foot touches the floor outside of the playing area. Again, it's a technical view of the thing that Kiki can argue. Blatantly lying about a situation when everyone can see it is not justifiable. This is not a subjective judgment like a foul call. This is just like an out of bounds review. They have to admit a blown call if the video clearly shows it. Remember this is an official statement, not just some talking head opining.
It really puts into perspective how much the general NBA flops. I've seen this same amount of contact and NBA players go flying. Example Marcus Smart.
@Easy, I would argue that Griffin’s foot placement when making contact with the opposing coach is not a key detail for deciding whether to punish him. They are not legislating whether he was out of bounds or not. If he chased D’antoni well out of bounds, that’s a different matter. As it is, it’s a judgment call — was Griffin close enough to the court action, and was MDA far enough from where he needed to be, to make the contact a non-violation? The league decided yes.
I cannot believe people are arguing in favour of Kiki and the league. What we know and see is: 1. Blake pointing at MDA 2. Blake running towards him 3. Blake at least having his elbow out right at the point of turning Who the hell cares where his feet are? This is just too stupid to even argue about. He’s clearly close to the line, could he in or out of bounds. The point is: he is close to our coach and clearly doing something with his shoulder / elbow. Why would Kiki and the league lie, really? There have been blatant lies in L2M reports, issues with regards to Donaghy, targeting of Yao, the nut kicking by Draymond and even worse the elbow by Fisher to Scola. The league have an agenda and favouritism. They are not unbiased and integer and everyone knows it.
