So he wasn’t suspended? If so, apparently the league disagreed with the (totally unbiased) Rockets fan base that it was a clear cut, suspension-worthy violation. Weird.
I am not a homer - just ask @heypartner - but seriously? Austin Rivers standing on the court during live action to taunt Ariza and BG making contact with a coach after "warning" him to stay off the court? How is that not even a fine?
Not fully inbounds. More relevant — the rule book says he had a right to be where he was. Was D’antoni where he was supposed to be? https://www.nba.com/media/dleague/1314-nba-rule-book.pdf “. The coach’s position may be on or off the bench from the 28' hash mark to the base- line. They are permitted between the 28' hash mark and the midcourt line to relay informa- tion to players but must return to the bench side of the 28' hash mark immediately or be called for a non-unsportsmanlike technical foul. “
like I've said before, I'm not here to argue for or against a suspension. You know as well as I do that not fully inbounds, by rules definition, means you are out-of-bounds, thus not inbounds. Don't be biased. Now, give me a "logical," "plausible explanation" for why a top league official would flat out lie to us when he apparently has another valid reason that you quoted. He doesn't even have to say anything, but he did. And he lied. What is a plausible explanation for lying about inbounds vs out-of-bounds as part of an official reason from a league official.
Griffin was not inbounds - you can clearly see his feet crossing over the line. MDA says he was hit. It also appears that Blake got him with an elbow. I mean Griffin is pointing at MDA and running towards him, so much so that Blake almost hits the Kia advertisement and has to take a full step to get back onto the court! I don't agree with Kiki
An unbiased person would make the very relevant distinction between a player who’s foot crossed the sideline in making contact with someone and a player who ran fully out of bounds to make contact with someone. These details matter in passing judgment for this case, in my opinion. I take it you think he was lying to cover up something more devious or he just didn’t bother looking carefully at the video. The more probable explanation, in my opinion, is that he didn’t mean “inbounds” in the very specific sense expected of a ball-handler, but rather to mean his body was primarily positioned in bounds. As Griffin wasn’t a ball handler in this case, his foot crossing over the sideline by inches really isn’t a crucial detail here. Have I answered your questions fairly?
Inconvenient to you, Doc was also inside the 28’ hash while MDA was not. Read the rules on where a coach is allowed to be. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see anything specific about momentarily crossing in bounds. Although I assume coaches shouldn’t obstruct the path of players.
