Here's a bit more than what was tweeted, but not much more: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sp...revor-Ariza-Gerald-Green-receive-12506082.php "We … determined that the contact was very minimal, didn't deserve a penalty," VanDeWeghe said. "When any contact or brush happened, Griffin was inbounds. D'Antoni was … right next to the line." That's a pretty informal explanation, but as I parse it it sounds like the key factor there was the contact that he considered "very minimal" on close review. The rest are elaborations on why the meager contact was sufficient to decide that a penalty wasn't deserved. For instance, if there was minimal contact, but D'Antoni was well off the line and Blake crossed over to brush past him, then a penalty may have been warranted in that case. That's how I read it. I think what's missing from his explanation is the fact that Griffin did pretty plainly alter his path when running down the floor. Yes, we are speculating to some degree, but it seems pretty obvious that the reason he did so was to make contact with our coach. VanDeWeghe seems to be cool with just letting that slide so long as the contact occurred close enough to the sideline.
vandeweghe is fuking nobody. if they tell him to make sure the square peg fits into a round hole, he'll sit there for 2hrs sanding with P2500 grit. at the end of the day the league absolutely does not want it's largest market by far without at least 1 team in the playoffs. the clips have been getting help every game the past month.
That's exactly what I think. Griffin was clearly going out of his way (literally) to make contact. Looking back, perhaps the "Griffin inbounds" and the "MDA near the sideline" are there to explain why the contact could not have been forceful. Maybe it has nothing to do with legality of Grifin's location but has something to do with the distance between the two persons.
When I've seen the rule applied it's been because a player used the area to get an advantage - going around a baseline screen. I am not sure how you are defining immediately. But to me if you take two steps out of bounds intentionally - you did not immediately return. Yes if it's accidental it's different because you are likely falling or stumbling or trying to save the ball and it may take time to recover. But a player should never intentionally go out of bounds at all. Blake took 4 or 5 steps before returning. Then he returned to the court and got a pass which is also a violation he didn't get called for. I am not sure why you are accusing people of over-reacting. There are a lot of non-Houston sports writers who feel Blake should have been punished. So this isn't just pure homerism. Believe me I'd be the first to call it out in that case. Blake intentionally gave a elbow to MDA - it was not accidental. For the NBA to call it not a big deal is for them to completely ignore the intent. It strikes me as bias from Kiki and not the judgment of fair arbitrators.
I’m not accusing anyone of overreacting for thinking Griffin should have been punished. In fact, I said that a fine was perhaps warranted. If people think he should have been suspended, fine. Good arguments can be made for that. I do think people here, on the whole, reacted as if the contact was more violent than it really was. People are going to support their coach. I get it. Sports fans have a special relationship with their teams — like they’re all in it together.
man, Thibodeau was outside the box, literally, the entire game. And MDA was often too. We see Pops and Kerr stand in front of the scorers table a lot too. I'm beginning to think the league has actually told the coaches not to block the view of fans in the courtside seats, in front of the Jack Nicholson's of the world. The 28' hash mark is right in front of Jack Nicholson, for instance. So, they stand at the end of the scorers table in the way of only league employees vs fans.
