Playoff Matchup Round 2: Lakers (2) vs Mavericks (3)

Is it logical to think you'll be physically assaulted by playing a game amongst supposed professionals?

Explain to me how it’s not similar. Try. Hard foul in that situation? Expected. Barea knew that and took that chance. Assault with a deadly elbow? Totally and completely un-called for. You look like a complete tool trying to justify Bynum’s actions.

 

I don't remember when their lead hit its apex, but the Mavs blew a 33 point lead to the Lakers about 7 or 8 years ago in Staples. In the 4th.

 

That wasn't a foul. That wasn't even remotely a play for the ball.

My god, v, why do the Mavericks have to play around because the Lakers are too soft and cowardly to know what a defensive rotation is or how to play on the perimeter? If you don't want the other team to score on you, play defense. And that doesn't mean "more or less attempt to deliberately injure Barea"

And while the rape analogy may be a bit overblown, you're basically blaming the Mavericks for making the Lakers feel bad because they sucked. What is this, rec league?

 

v.3.0 is just the worst

 

When this has happened before with these supposed professionals, is it logical to test the boundaries?

Explain to me what is before rape which is comparable to an "ok" hard foul to your eyes. Can we grope the lady's butt if they dressed appropriately to deserve it? That's why your comparison is freaking stupid.

What is a legit hard foul that doesn't cross the line when you're getting whooped by 30 points and one of them is still driving in the lane? Oh my bad, the Lakers should have just played good D while someone is driving in the lane up 30.

 

That wasnt a 'hard foul', it was a cheap shot fueled by anger. Bynum himself said as much, the other Lakers found and apologized to Barea after the game. There's no excuse, I don't care what the score is. I'm sure Bynum will hear from the NBA about it eventually.

 

Obviously, the ACT of rape and the ACT of committing a physically dangerous and unnecessary foul are entirely different, but that wasn't his point. The rape analogy is actually spot on, as your argument is essentially trying to pin some level of fault on JJ (victim) and/or alleviate some level of fault from Bynum (perpetrator).

 

No it wasn't remotely a play for the ball. It was a pissed off player seeing an opponent driving in the lane with his team down 30.

 

Why are you trying to defend it?
Bottom line: no hitting during the game. Especially not when the guy is in the air and could get badly hurt on landing.

Piling on points with a lead and little time is part of the game. Mercy rules have no place in pro-sports.

There is no defense for Bynum.

 

You can potentially end someones career because they hurt your feelings and make you feel bad.

 

Rape analogy is still stupid in my book. A dirty play in pro sports as an act of retaliation, yep rape is the first thought in my mind.

Don't know about you, but I don't think Bynum will have a hard time finding work in the NBA even if fans deem him dirty. In fact I'm willing to bet some would take him on the Rockets if available.

Back to Barea, again that guy must be naive to think nothing was going to happen when driving into the lane up 30. Severity of the act Bynum did is not my argument.

Please drop the stupid rape comparison.

Some of you act like this is your first time watching a dirty play in pro sports, no wonder the stupid comparisons. Sullen the eyes of boys scouts in here.

 

You're the one defending your precious Bynum retaliated because he got hurt emotionally . Dude was crying on the inside and threw a hissy fit.

 

LMAO, suddenly I'm a champion of Bynum.

Player drives in the lane up 30 and gets a dirty play as a result = I'm Bynum's #1 fan

This is getting rich. :grin:

 

Again, the point of the analogy isn't to compare the two acts in question. I'll concede that rape, as an act, shouldn't be compared to a dirty play in a sporting event. And I'll also concede that the reasoning behind the two acts are entirely different - one being retaliation and the other being the manifestation of some criminal pathology. The entire purpose of bringing up rape was to highlight the fact that it's a bad argument to shift any of the blame onto the victim in the scenario that he/she places additional risk on himself/herself of another individual committing an offense.

Barea may have been naive to drive into the lane in that situation, and may be he wasn't. The point lies that Bynum's actions were dangerous, unnecessary, and entirely unprofessional. And whether or not other teams would want Bynum is entirely irrelevant. Michael Vick killed dogs, and I'm sure half the teams in the league would trade their starting QB for him.

 

then f*in make a play on the ball.. foul while getting a reach-in, a steal,a charge, a block, a rebound, a charge, or something.. don't just randomly elbow a an opponent while driving and in the air..

 

Again I'm not questioning the severity of Bynum's dirty play. It was bad, but a clothesline in midair would have been worse, and that has happened before in the NBA also. Am I justifying that? No, but there is a reason for every action. Bynum was frustrated and decided he had enough of that.

There are many things that happen in pro sports that is dangerous and unprofessional because of pro athlete's actions. Newsflash: many pro athletes aren't the shining beacon of good sportsmanship that we want them to be. Do we still tune in to watch them? I do.

And I'm still not giving Barea a pass in this. Frustrated player with team down 30 and you're going to drive in on him, yeah good idea buddy. What can possibly go wrong?

The boy scouts of america salutes you. But none of those acts would have helped the situation for a team down 30 and knew they weren't coming back.

If the Lakers were down 2, then yeah Bynum would have made a play for the ball. I hope no one argues that assumption.

 

Obviously, there's a reason for every action. I don't think anyone is saying that Bynum acted with no reason at all - we're simply saying that it was a pathetic, childish, and morally questionable reason. And whether or not we tune in to watch them play is, again, irrelevant. I agree with you that I'll keep watching sports despite the presence of terrible sportsmanship, but that doesn't mean that this mere presence allows for any defense of said lack of sportsmanship.
And Barea driving into the lane in that situation makes him AT MOST an idiot... maybe an arrogant idiot. But, he didn't commit any moral infraction. Bynum did.

 

This. And v3.0, I'm a huge fan of fouling a player hard to keep them out of the paint, but there is a difference between a hard foul and a cheap shot like that. Fouling a player and letting them know they can't come in your paint without being chipped and shoved is an essential part of basketball, but recklessly elbowing a player in mid air is stupid. That isn't a hard foul. That wasn't to prevent barea from coming into the paint again, that was to let out his frustrations. And when you let the opponent get in your head, your game decisions suffer.

 

Just saw the replay on YouTube, jj saw an opening and he went for it how is that stupid, you don't change the way you play just because you r winning. The argument that ge should know better is stupid because a reasonable person should not have to worry getting mugg while playing ball infront if million of people. You keep repeating that jj should know better how about those solider that got shot because one of the doc went crazy, do they deserve it too, since it is stupid to go anywhere with out carrying your gun but one should be able to assume that one should be safe in one base.

I think you are a troll and just want to get a rise out of other people or u just really stupid

 

But you do acknowledge that poor sportsmanship happens in sports, that much you will say.

So would you agree there is such a term as "running up the score"? (which might be deemed poor sportsmanships, which can be deemed a moral infraction in some eyes)

Would you concede that a player in the moment of the game has the ability to determine what is "running up the score", no matter if he was justified or not?

Would you concede that a frustrated player with his team down by a very large amount might do something wreckless if presented the opportunity and reason. Again I'm not arguing the severity of the wreckless behaviour, but if that thought process is possible during a pro game.

Barea decided to drive in while up 30, Bynum committed a dirty play out of frustration. Again I'm not questioning the severity, I'm questioning Barea's thought process and the notion that pro athletes make dirty plays without provocation = just because he felt like it. Bynum could have ran up to the halfcourt and clotheslined Barea, but he didn't. Only when Barea drove into the lane.