<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N1gIvABDuaw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Lock if already posted.
I don't see how you guys don't think it was dirty. You can't pull someone down over the shoulders when they're in the air. That is dirty and dangerous. If that was streetball, Nate Robinson probably would've been hit.
He's always flopping. He even tried to sell the whiplash to the ground... But that wasn't as bad as it seemed though. Flagrant 2 but barely.
IMO, when you grab a player in the air and throw them down with zero attempt on the ball, it should be an automatic flagrant 2 ejection and one-game suspension. The NBA should eliminate this unnecessary and dangerous play. This way, everyone would know beforehand you just don't do it because the penalty is too severe.
There's a difference between grabbing your man to prevent the basket and trying to throw him on the ground. You could easily intentionally foul without hurting someone. Malicious and unnecessary, I'm not sure what else he could have thought would happen.
That was definitely a flagrant 2, although it looked worse in real time than it looked on the replay. I don't think he was really trying to hurt him, but it was definitely excessive, and there was no play on the ball.
While it is a F2 foul I do think Nate didn't have dirty intentions with it, he was just trying to foul hard and stop the layup.
It looks worse than it was. Lance has 100 pounds and a foot on Nate Robinson. He had no other option in order to make sure he stopped him from an easy dunk or lay-up. He had to use force to guarantee he wouldnt give up an easy 2. I dont think it deserves a flagrant 2. Just my opinion, but a small guard with such a strength and size disadvantage cant stop a guy that big any other way, that is just a fact and the reality of it. He did what he had to, and even tried to soften the fall. This is not a finable or even a throw him out of the game type of hard foul.
If the only way Nate Robinson can stop a player from a fast break dunk is to throw him down, then he has no right to throw that player down. It is DANGEROUS, and Nate Robinson has a history of it. Remember this play? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0ZVjbeL0Big" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Whether he had intent or not, his history of throwing down players on fast break is stupid and dangerous. Do it safely, or don't do it at all.
And many defenders stop a bigger, stronger player from getting an easy layup/dunk all the time. Except they do it before the player has gathered and is in the air. Robinson does it after they have gathered their momentum to go up. Dangerous dangerous play.
Honestly it looked worse than it was, Stephenson's head never hit the ground but I'm sure some whiplash occured. You can see Nate actually tried to use his hands to sort of catch Stephenson right before he lands but doesn't quite make it. On the discussion of Dragic's hit, at the time of the impact it looks terrible but if you actually watch Nate's hands he does go for the ball too. I think I remember Nate being so athletic he played both basketball and football so maybe it's just instinctive to give a hard foul. I've talked a few people at work who play basketball at work and they all say if anyone ever tried to dunk on them, they'd undercut that person for sure. Just because they feel disrespected. If I could contest it in the air I will if its on game point, I don't think the game has room for people getting injured that way. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have a broken anything because I can jump higher than the opposing team.
Nate has a propensity of dishing out aggressive fouls. Given his reputation, that's why he got this Flagrant - 2. Ron Artest would approve.
Stephenson wasn't in the air. Robinson pulls down on Stephenson's shoulder on Stephenson's first step. I think it was a clean play that looked dirty b/c Stephenson tried to jump forward while someone was pulling down on him.
