the fact that his trajectory takes him out of bounds right after the hit is all the evidence required to ascertain his intent. wtf was he doing off the court? unless his blood alcohol level was 0.2 no way he ends up there without wanting to
The league’s judgment after the fact in no way justifies, not alters, the likelihood of BG’s foul being intentional or not. It’s one of the most important rules regarding Bayesian inference. Adding additional constraints automatically aids your side of this argument, regardless of the outcome of those constraints. For someone that is obsessed with being unbiased, you don't seem to know a lot about cognitive biases. Don't forget, WYSIATI. Also, try reframing your hypothesis. Most situations can be explained using some combo of correct reasoning, and be completely wrong.
I think the intent of Griffin's action is quite clear. He had no other reason to run out of bounds. But intent is a judgment call. My point to heypartner was about the official statement of why Griffin was not punished. It states that Griffin was inbounds as part of the reason for dismissing the case. Unlike intent, whether Griffin was out of bounds is not a judgment call but a fact that can be verified by video evidence. The league has the authority to make a judgment call. But they do not have the liberty to deny facts. When they say that Griffin was inbounds and therefore the action was not punishable, they have to be able to substantiate the claim of that fact (or at least claim inconclusiveness). It seems reasonable to me that the official league statement would be careful to not include any falsehood. To me, the intent is clear and it should be enough to punish Griffin. Whether he was out of bounds is irrelevant. Using that as part of the reason for their decision is unacceptable. If my read is right, they are basically using a technicality to dismiss a case when everybody knows that the suspect is guilty.
Of course it doesn’t. You missed my point — I wasn’t using the league’s judgment to somehow pretend all my preceding comments were solid. Which was ATW’s implication. It sounds like you maybe are saying something smart here, but I’m not exactly sure what it is. A third party deciding, after apparently reviewing the play from multiple angles unavailable to us, that the contact was minimal should adjust one’s appraisal of what happened. Call it “Bayesian inference” if you like. I just think of it as common sense. I will say this. My premises at the start of this thread were off. I started off not knowing the full history of Griffin’s on-court antics. I started off not recognizing why Griffin would want to make contact with our coach or why he thought he could get away it, since there were details about the play I didn’t observe correctly at first. That led me to think it could have been unintentional, because the alternative that he’s just an emotional hot head who wanted to “hit” our coach in front of the ref for no apparent reason seemed so unlikely. So, yes, “correct reasoning” isn’t enough to lead one to the correct conclusion, if the premises are off. Happens all the time.
Did we receive an official statement? I saw a tweet with a quote, which for all I know could have been an abridgment of what was said over a phone call.
Exactly! They were looking for an excuse to not punish him imo. The whole drama afterwards and the media’s dismissal of Griffin being wrong, gave the league the perfect opportunity to say it was minimal and he was inbounds therefore not guilty. Narrative is very powerful, especially when Blake’s already proven to be protected by the league.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1044980001 Tad Brown: “Mike D’Antoni is a great guy, and Mike decided he just wants to let this go,” Brown said. “Things happen in the heat of battle, but we were surprised, I think, a little bit that Blake was not – didn’t receive any discipline in any form or fashion. “They reviewed everything, and again the league is very thorough in these things, and they’re very impartial. And I understand (vice president of basketball operations Kiki VanDeWeghe) explanation in everything in reviewing the tape, and reviewing everything else, but I also was there and I also have spoken with Mike and our guys and it was a situation that we think could’ve been avoided. But the league has made its decision, and we respect that. And Mike respects that. That’s the most important thing, and we’ll go forward from there.”
Do you think the rockets will put a season ending injury on Black Griffin and Austin Rivers when they meet again? Extremely bad blood right now...Might be a really really bad game coming up.
No it won’t. Ariza might bump Griffin and someone might body up Rivers a bit, but our guys are more bark than bite. Hell, Griffin who is considered a punk around the league punked our whole team! Also to all the ones understanding Kiki and defending the league, you know who you are, Afflalo got 2 games. Still think they are unbiased and made the right decision?
How about just win the game? It’s funny to me how people think tanking games by sitting out players or getting our players suspended for more games somehow sends a message to other teams or the league. No, we just end up looking like even bigger fools.
Honestly, pretty annoyed at the organisation's response to this. Obviously they're treading lightly and going this route to stay on the good side of the league. But the good side of the league has warranted what exactly? Call out their blatant bullsh*t, deal with the sh*tstorm that ensues, while the league also has to deal with their own sh*tstorm from the constant questioning, then maybe they'll pull their head in just a little bit.
Maybe the league made a deal with the Rockets and Clippers — no suspension for Griffin, Harden, and Paul and just drop any protests you may have. Everyone’s happy.
Lol this dude was def trying to sound smart . He has no idea about what he's talking about lol . "Bayesian inferences" hahahah
No, we are acting on the assumption that what was quoted from Kiki Vandeweghe was the official statement. Vandeweghe is the league official so he should be speaking carefully when asked about the judgment. Even if that tweet was an abridged version, it seems reasonable to interpret that all the points in there are the main points of the official stance, i.e. (1) the contact was minimal, (2) Griffin was inbounds, and (3) MDA was close to the sideline. He could have just said it was minimal contact and not serious enough to have any disciplinary action. The fact that he included the other two points means that those were important factors in making the judgment. And if they are important for the official judgment, they'd better be facts and not blatant falsehood.
