Jazz at Bulls 7:00 CST

[Archie Moses]

You compared getting hit in the arm to getting hit in the head. Those are two different things.

Why did the refs call the flagrant last night? Do you think they would call the flagrant for the similar hit to the arm? Of course not. Two very different body parts.
You are better than that.

And like I said in my first post on this topic. I agree with you that dude was going for the ball. But he could also make it look like he was going for the ball and actually intentionally go for the head and try to hurt a guy and the refs not know. Therefore the rule should be that hard hits to the head, whether intentional or unintentional, are flagrant. Otherwise there is a slippery slope when trying to determine intent.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.

 

[fishonjazz]

The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.

Again, it isn't about how much harm it did or didnt do. It's about potential harm. Thats why you have rules and laws.
If I shoot at you and miss you don't get hurt at all. But I still get in big trouble because of what could have happened. You want to try to deter people from shooting each other.

If a player gets hit hard in the head but didn't get hurt the player committing the foul still gets a flagrant because of the potential harm. You want to deter players from hitting other players in the head. That is the whole point of calling a foul like the one last night a flagrant.


And to answer your first question in a literal sense, yes it did not harm than getting hit in the arm would have. He got a knot on his head and lost a contact. That doesn't happen if he gets hit on the arm.

Also a player up in the air getting hit in the head is more likely to cause the player to land badley than getting hit in the arm.

There is just no comparison between the two. It's apples to oranges bro
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[sahlensguy]

The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.

You're ignoring the fact that players fall harder when getting knocked in the head while elevated than they do from a blow to an arm.

 

[Archie Moses]

Again, it isn't about how much harm it did or didnt do. It's about potential harm. Thats why you have rules and laws.
If I shoot at you and miss you don't get hurt at all. But I still get in big trouble because of what could have happened. You want to try to deter people from shooting each other.

If a player gets hit hard in the head but didn't get hurt the player committing the foul still gets a flagrant because of the potential harm. You want to deter players from hitting other players in the head. That is the whole point of calling a foul like the one last night a flagrant.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I guess the disconnect is you're about potential and I'm about actuality.

To me, the hit wasn't bad, didn't hurt Rudy and happens. I'm ok with thinking that.

 

[fishonjazz]

You're ignoring the fact that players fall harder when getting knocked in the head while elevated than they do from a blow to an arm.

He is ignoring many things here for some reason. I'm certain he knows better but has dug in and is committed to his stance at this point and there is no turning back now.
Don't think it's gonna matter what anyone says.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Archie Moses]

You're ignoring the fact that players fall harder when getting knocked in the head while elevated than they do from a blow to an arm.

I'm just acknowledging what happened in this play. Yes, of course I'm ignoring all other what ifs and fluff.

 

[sahlensguy]

I'm just acknowledging what happened in this play. Yes, of course I'm ignoring all other what ifs and fluff.

Yes. You would call this play the same as Clarkson hand check foul.

 

[fishonjazz]

I guess the disconnect is you're about potential and I'm about actuality.

To me, the hit wasn't bad, didn't hurt Rudy and happens. I'm ok with thinking that.

I agreed with you about that play dude. Then I (and others) explained why the rule exists.

If I shoot at you and miss then do you think the law should go by potential or what actually happened. No one was hurt so I should have no consequences right?
Potential literally does matter.

The reason travelling exists is because the potential for a player to get an advantage.

If I travel right after inbounding the ball it doesn't help me or hurt my opponent but is still against the rules. Rules and laws exist because of potential.

I can drink and drive and hurt no one. But I would still get arrested for drinking and driving because of potential.

I have seen goal tending calls where the ball was 100% certain to come off the rim for a missed shot but the player touched the ball before if came off the rim. It's called because of the potential for a player to effect the outcome of the basket even if the actually reality on that particular play didn't effect the outcome of the basket.

That will be my last post on this topic. I can't be any clearer.

I mean with your thinking there shouldnt even be "and 1's". The ball went in so who cares that the foul occurred. Didn't actually affect anything.

Also, only intentional fouls should be called fouls.
If you go to for a shot and I try to block it but actually hit your forearm then that should be a foul cause it was unintentional.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Goodluckchuck]

Caught the game late. Loved Gobert at the end swinging his gorilla dick around on defense. Love when he plays like that.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

I always wonder about that too.
I don't know what to think about it

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

He does that to everyone though

The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.

Accumulating hits to the head can lead to things like concussions, which lead to shortened careers, CTE and other cognitive disorders. Arm injuries are more short term than a ****ing brain injury.

these calls are made to reduce hits to the head, and reduce harm to its players for the overall product for fans and protecting ones business.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

I’d like to point out that Niang is starting to get a rhythm with more playing time. He was very good last night.

 

[MilesDeep]

It is much easier to hide his deficiencies when not teamed with Davis and Green. I think he can be a plus if Quin is careful with lineups.