I really hope Mike speaks his mind when he gets asked about Blake not getting suspended or even fined. Ridiculous.
One foot? Both feet went out and he nearly collided with his own brand sponsor lol. I mean his left heel couldn't even go down because it was against the ad he had gone so far out. Why would a player run out of bounds??? Oh, and Blake was not trying to start anything at all - he's totally innocent!
Are you talking about what he did as he was “brushing” against MDA, or what happened right after? Players are allowed to run out of bounds while the ball is in play.
@Sweet Lou 4 2 That Joker tweet kind of says it all. It’s apparent that Griffin takes some pleasure in getting under the skin of opposing players and coaches. I was mistaken in initially thinking it could have been unintentional. Clearly he used D’antoni’s positioning in that moment as an excuse to brush against him and piss off the Rockets. I think he cleverly did what he did without overtly crossing over the rules and got away with it. Rodman-esque.
Not voluntarily. If they do that voluntarily then they are not allowed to receive a pass which is what Blake did. In that case it would be a violation and result in a turnover. Blake Griffin had no reason to go out of bounds. He wasn't avoiding contact. He wasn't chasing a ball down. He didn't slip. He voluntarily ran out of bounds and then back in and was the first one to receive the ball. That's a violation that wasn't called right there.
Blake Griffin is a punk that thinks he’s slick. Not sure how he gets away with it. I actually blame Chris Paul a little for creating this monster early in his career
Not Rodman-esque. Rodman did it to gain an advantage ON THE COURT - to win the game at hand. Blake Griffin does it out of anger. You can see it in the way he spiked that ball at Gordon even though it was after the whistle blew. What bothers me is that he gets away with it. It's not even that subtle. He points and MDA before making contact. He is so brazen he puts up that Joker Tweet as as a way of telling everyone, "Yup, I orchestrated everything!" And walks away without a fine. Ridiculous.
There you go again being the champion of "unbiased people." icymi: I am only interested in why he lied. No, I'm asking for a plausible explanation for why he lied, mainly to see how biased you will get in defending it. You answered it. But your plausible explanation that a league official in his official, precedence-making judgement really didn't mean inbounds like how his referees use the term (when he didn't even have to bring that up, per your rules interpretation) fails my "unbaised" test, but maybe not quite as much as everyone here failed being "unbiased people" to you, apparently. Of course, calling your opinion biased is just my "logical" interpretation of your explanation. Sorry, nothing you can do about that...as I'm just using Logic to read your mind. You should have gone for another plausible explanation ... as I have faith there is a "more unbiased and plausible" one out there, without it being devious in nature.
Rodman never hit a coach. And I think you mean Rodman got away with stuff during play that pretty much can only results in fouls and/or technicals. How many things did he get away with when the league investigated his actions afterwards?
What’s the term he should have used instead for a player who’s body is mostly positioned in bounds? You’re reading quite a bit into a tweet. Maybe a fuller explanation from him would satisfy you. I’m not his attorney, so it’s not for me to defend his word choice. I can’t say I understand the logic you’re using, but you’re attempt to corner me here is amusing. I’m somewhat curious what you think that might be. Anyway, my main take away from all this is that Griffin knew what he could get away with, and he successfully did so. When he knocks into a player or coach in the future, I’ll assume first he is probably trying to instigate something or annoy them.
Oh, look. He does have a history of bumping coaches, per Mark Jackson ... lulz btw: I think I came up with a plausible explanation why Kiki lied. But wondering if you can come up with a better one, too.
Rodman did stuff to purposely annoy opposing players, often in ways he could get away with without penalty. Brushing up against opposing coaches — I can’t recall him doing that, but it’s not something I would have considered out of character for him by any means.
Am I misusing the word "Logic" by saying you don't make logical sense for why Kiki lied, like you claimed Logic by reading Griffin's mind earlier? As for amusement, I'm equally amused by how you claim the word Logic and Bias in this thread, all to your own. It doesn't take much logic to know you are defending Kiki's lie with prejudice. It is amusing watching you do it.
Yes, I understand. But did he get away with actions investigated by the league office after the fact. You don't really have to answer. I'm just making a distinction that to say players get away with things on the court is not quite the same as further getting exonerated via a league investigation.
I forgot I had asked. I must credit myself for an excellent opening question. I’ve already given you the best explanation I can think of, but if you can offer a convincing reason for him wanting to lie I’m ready to hear it.
btw: it wasn't just a tweet. It was a Woj quote of Kiki. So, I'm assuming that was from an official statement. My guess at another reason? maybe because they interviewed MDA, and MDA chose to drop it, or at least said it wasn't much of a hit/elbow. So rather than say players have a right to that out-of-bounds space if the coach is out of the box, as that's unnecessary / too much information / not something that they really want to allow, and could lead to more cases; since the league knows coaches go outside the box all the time like that, and they have no intention of penalizing it...(fwiw: NCAA extended the box to 38 feet this year.) Thus, the rules present a Catch-22 of sorts. So, for precedence sake, Kiki lies and says he was inbounds, as MDA already dropped it...(Didn't MDA even say "I didn't appreciate it" but otherwise down-played it.) I would venture to guess that since MDA isn't a dramatic guy, all he wanted to do in the heat of the moment and in interviews after is make sure Griffin knew that he knew it was an intentional punk thing to do, but otherwise drop it. The other explanation is MDA didn't really drop it, but Kiki still wanted the "Inbounds" lie to go on record rather than say players can run into coaches and get away with it, if the coach is out of the box. So, the punk not only got away with it, but the League had to lie about it. lulz lastly, I never called Griffin a punk before. Was a fan. No longer.
When did I claim to read his mind? I can’t read anyone’s mind. Quote me, and if I didn’t express myself properly I’ll clear up the confusion for you. If you think my explanation is illogical, explain why. The nice thing about logic is that two logical people such as ourselves, presumably, should be able to agree on what is logical. Using words and claiming words for oneself are two different things. You are free to use them. And what is my prejudice? I am biased to support whatever the league ruling is on matters like this? I fully accept that charge. I think they are best positioned to decide what is the right way to enforce their own rules. It is in their interests to enforce them more or less fairly. On the other hand, it is in the Rockets and their fans’ interests for the rules to be enforced in a manner most beneficial to the Rockets.
