PDA

View Full Version : Joey Crawford/Tim Duncan, what the HECK?



dukeENG2003
04-16-2007, 08:52 AM
Did anyone else see the Spurs Mavericks game yesterday and the ejection of Tim Duncan for simply laughing at a bad no call? He picked up his 1st T on the bench, there wasn't a clear camera view of him for the whole play, so I'll grant that perhaps he said something, but from what I saw, he looked to be pretty calm and collected. His second T though, they had a camera trained on him the whole time, and all he did was laugh, clap his hands, and wipe his face with a towel. Both T's were called by Crawford, and when he called the second one, a couple of other guys on the Spurs bench were like "who, me?", cuz they couldn't figure out what had been done wrong by anybody.

I've read some posters here criticize Karl Hess in the NCAAs, saying "he needs to realize why people come to see the games", but this is a whole new level. Heck, it pissed me off as a fan cuz I wanted to watch Tim and Dirk go at it, not watch Joey Crawford take out his personal issues (and theres a rumor that Crawford even challenged Duncan to a fight!). Joey Crawford needs to be taken down a peg, and suspended if you ask me. ESPN has a couple articles on it for insiders that I would LOVE to know what they are about if any of you have that access.

I appreciate the NBA trying to cut down on the complaining about calls, but it seems to me that laughing about a bad call IS the sportsmanlike way to deal with it. You can't expect the players to have a poker face about every call that goes against them, and what better benign way to handle a call going against you than to just laugh it off?

Here's a link to the Chicago Tribune's article on the incident:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/cs-0704160120apr16,1,1877532.story?coll=cs-basketball-print

Channing
04-16-2007, 09:08 AM
that was absurd. Additionally, Duncan said that after he was tossed and was justifiably asking Joey Crawford why Crawford kept shouting and asking Duncan if he wanted to fight. Granted, Tim acted a little childish in telling him to meet him in the parking lot - but that is still crazy for a referee to act like that.

dukeENG2003
04-16-2007, 09:29 AM
granted, Tim calling him "a piece of #$%*" and telling him to meet him in the parking lot afterwards wasn't great, but I think he handled it better than 99.9% of NBA players would (and I think its safe to say, he didn't start this). Sure it was a pretty meaningless game (although the Spurs still technically had some reason to play), but remember, a technical foul costs you $500 in the NBA. I know money doesn't mean a whole lot to these guys, but if someone stole $1000 from you in front of 10,000 people and challenged you to a fight, what would YOU say about that person?

MrBisonDevil
04-16-2007, 10:25 AM
I know money doesn't mean a whole lot to these guys, but if someone stole $1000 from you in front of 10,000 people and challenged you to a fight, what would YOU say about that person?

Hmmmm... I'd probably call him "a piece of #$%*". :D

Carter431
04-16-2007, 03:59 PM
I saw the incident live and it was laughable. Crawford looked like he just wanted to prove that he had control of the game. He should be suspended.

houstondukie
04-17-2007, 08:12 AM
Could Crawford have meant "Do you want to argue" rather than physically fight Duncan?

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 08:32 AM
regardless of whether he meant "fight" or "argue", it was Crawford who initiated the confrontation, which is the big problem in the whole incident. Regardless of what his implied meaning was, the way in which he handled the incident was pathetic, referees are supposed to control situations, not escalate them. This wasn't even an issue until he made it one.

The fact is, if we know the referee's name, something is wrong

Another problem on top of that is the lack of consistency and the lack of any explanation. If Tim had been riding the refs all game long and this was the last straw, Crawford should have said something about it when interviewed, but all he could say was that Tim called him a "piece of @#$*", which was AFTER he had been tossed. Try to apply the "logic" that Crawford used equally to all players, and half of the players in that game should have been thrown out as well.

Crawford didn't exactly do a stellar job AFTER that call either. He totally botched the next play (the offensive foul called on Oberto, when Josh Howard did a flying karate chop into him), and whistled a total phantom call in the corner with about 8 seconds left that all but sealed the game (the officials went on about how the spurs shouldn't have fouled. . . well, they DIDN'T, but there was Joey Crawford, right on top of the play, missing the call badly).

btw, I found this kinda funny:

http://red-sox.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/16/potential-reasons-that-joey-crawford-has-it-in-for-tim-duncan/

calltheobvious
04-17-2007, 09:28 AM
regardless of whether he meant "fight" or "argue", it was Crawford who initiated the confrontation, which is the big problem in the whole incident. Regardless of what his implied meaning was, the way in which he handled the incident was pathetic, referees are supposed to control situations, not escalate them. This wasn't even an issue until he made it one.

The fact is, if we know the referee's name, something is wrong

Another problem on top of that is the lack of consistency and the lack of any explanation. If Tim had been riding the refs all game long and this was the last straw, Crawford should have said something about it when interviewed, but all he could say was that Tim called him a "piece of @#$*", which was AFTER he had been tossed. Try to apply the "logic" that Crawford used equally to all players, and half of the players in that game should have been thrown out as well.

Crawford didn't exactly do a stellar job AFTER that call either. He totally botched the next play (the offensive foul called on Oberto, when Josh Howard did a flying karate chop into him), and whistled a total phantom call in the corner with about 8 seconds left that all but sealed the game (the officials went on about how the spurs shouldn't have fouled. . . well, they DIDN'T, but there was Joey Crawford, right on top of the play, missing the call badly).

btw, I found this kinda funny:

http://red-sox.aolsportsblog.com/2007/04/16/potential-reasons-that-joey-crawford-has-it-in-for-tim-duncan/


You pretty well cede all credibility when you misattribute to Joe Crawford the call following the second technical. The missed play involving the "illegal screen" against Oberto was made by Sean Corbin, not Joe Crawford.

You, Duncan, and most of the national media can complain all you want about Crawford, but that doesn't change the fact that Duncan knew exactly what he was doing on the bench. Duncan has a lot more personality than people give him credit for, but he had one thing and one thing only in mind with his forced uproarious laughter, and that was to mock Crawford. The plausible deniability he thought he had with his sophomoric response to the whistle was, to my mind, totally implausible.

I'm like Chris Rock on this one. I'm not saying I would have run him, but I understand.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 09:42 AM
It WAS crawford that effectively ended the game with a phantom call. To his credit, he was in great position, he just missed it and anticipated the spurs were going to foul when they weren't trying to (After Manu Ginobli's boneheaded play to give the first foul)

also, Crawford actually had the better angle to see the karate chop on the Oberto call (since he was on the other side of the court), the other official was closer, but Oberto was screening his view of the play. The official closest to the play was likely focused on the fact that Oberto's right foot was just barely, if even, set. The official on the opposite side should have seen that Howard JUMPED into the screen, elbows up. I'm no official, so maybe I'm wrong, but I calls them as I see them, be it biased, credible, or not.

As far as Duncans "emotions", are you trying to say that players must be entirely poker faced about all calls made? I was told by some coaches of mine growing up that "laughing off a bad call" was the sportsmanlike way to handle it. They better start passing out lithium to the players if thats what they want out of them.

calltheobvious
04-17-2007, 10:04 AM
If Crawford is looking all the way across the floor on the screen in question, who, pray tell, do you think is officiating off the ball on Crawford's side of the court? It's not the job of every official to keep his eye on the ball at all times.

As for your the "laugh it off" advice you got from your coach, I actually do think it's horrible advice. Laughter in that situation is feigned, and reasonably interpreted as mocking. Duncan was mocking Crawford. Again, he thought that laughter served as plausible cover there for what he was really doing, but I think that a moment's pause reveals Timmie's actions for what they were.

The real problem is that neither guy is going to budge an inch. If Duncan would apologize for the mockery, I think Joe would be willing to give a little on the quick trigger. But Duncan's going to play this one really smug, and given that, I don't blame Crawford for sticking to his guns here.

CMS2478
04-17-2007, 10:14 AM
If Crawford is looking all the way across the floor on the screen in question, who, pray tell, do you think is officiating off the ball on Crawford's side of the court? It's not the job of every official to keep his eye on the ball at all times.

As for your the "laugh it off" advice you got from your coach, I actually do think it's horrible advice. Laughter in that situation is feigned, and reasonably interpreted as mocking. Duncan was mocking Crawford. Again, he thought that laughter served as plausible cover there for what he was really doing, but I think that a moment's pause reveals Timmie's actions for what they were.

The real problem is that neither guy is going to budge an inch. If Duncan would apologize for the mockery, I think Joe would be willing to give a little on the quick trigger. But Duncan's going to play this one really smug, and given that, I don't blame Crawford for sticking to his guns here.


I think "laughing a call off" is not necessarily the good sportsman thing to do, but it is certainly better than the way 99% of NBA players handle every other call. There is more whining in the NBA over calls than I can tolerate and I know as a former college player I found myself laughing at some of the calls bc they were so ridiculous. I think sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying and this is what Timmy was doing. He thought the call was so bad that instead of arguing he would laugh. It also occured on the bench so whether he was even laughing about the call is not certain. Horry could have told him a good "Yo Momma" joke.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 10:28 AM
my ignorance of who is reponsible for what areas of the court has been shown, and I will concede that, but it seemed like a pretty obvious even out of your peripheral vision that Howard jumped into that screen. Point conceded though on the screen call (the officials still missed it, but it wasn't necessarily Crawfords fault and actually understandable given the vantage point the other official had).

I simply cannot and will not acknowledge that this incident was in any way Tim Duncan's fault. He could have handled certain things better, but the situation was escalated by Crawford. Duncans actions (on the second T) were worthy of a warning at best. The first T didn't have as clear footage, although it was clear that there were no ACTIONS worthy of a first T, perhaps he said a "magic word"? Crawford didn't mention anything about this T in his post game comments. Seems to me that Tim being incredulous about the officiating was entirely reasonable. As stated, if you were to consistently enforce a "no laughing demonstrably at bad calls" rule, there would hardly be enough players left to finish a game.

I'm simply not buying the Tim Duncan being overly complainant about the referees either. If anything else, watch how sportsmanlike he was in handling the farcical officiating in the 2004 Olympics. His only problem is with the gigantic ego that Joey Crawford exudes. As in any profession, the best in the trade are often pretty arrogant (whoops, forgot it doesn't like the other word I used), but he needs to be taken down a peg and realize why people come to see the games. Duncan hardly has a track record of being arrogant.

DukieUGA
04-17-2007, 10:33 AM
if Duncan was not interfering withe game on the court, then there is no reason to call Ts on players on the bench. I agree withe former statement that there is a problem when we even recognize the refs or know them by name, they SHOULD NOT be the focus of the game, the players should. At any rate, it's Crawford who looks like a fool in this, i hope the league disciplines him somehow.

CDu
04-17-2007, 11:28 AM
Duncan is apparently known around the league as a whiner to the officials. This may be part of what Crawford carried with him into the game. Crawford lost his composure. I don't know what preceded the first technical, but getting two technical fouls while sitting on the bench sounds more like the official's fault than the fault of the player.

Was Duncan mocking the officiating from the bench with the laughter? I'd be willing to bet yes. Is that appropriate? No. Does that warrant a technical? No. I know that they've been cracking down this season on technicals, but in a closely contested and heated game, the official has to have thicker skin than to eject a player for something as passive/aggressive as mocking laughter. That really is ridiculous.

It is a tough job being an official, but part of the job is to leave your ego and emotions at the door. Crawford clearly failed to do so. He seemingly gave no warnings to Duncan (as is generally standard procedure), gave no leash after the first technical, and seemed intent on making a point with the second technical. That is inappropriate for an official. It happens, but it doesn't make it acceptable. Duncan is going to be fined for the ejection and probably for his comments. It would seem only appropriate that Crawford be punished as well.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 11:57 AM
Duncan is apparently known around the league as a whiner to the officials.

Really? I didn't know this or suspect it, but I am interested to know a source for this information. I always thought of him as above that sort of bickering, which is what suprised me so much here. Perhaps the "big fundamentals" normal cool demeanor HAS fooled me. . .

jma4life
04-17-2007, 01:06 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care if Duncan was saying the meanest, most inappropriate, disgusting things possible about Crawford in addition to mocking the guy. When you are sitting on the bench, you should be able to say what you want as long as it does not interfere with the game.
What's next? Is Crawford going to go to the lockerroom of the Spurs to monitor their players for mocking?

I had enough of a problem with the policy of preventing guys from basically showing any emotion, but I understood it. But this! Throwing a guy out of a huge game because he told a joke? Come on. That sounds like the kind of technical foul Daniel Ewing gets, but certainly not like the kind of technical foul that should actually be called.

And Crawford has no excuse to not be focused on the game. If he's so worried about Duncan that he notices him laughing and mocking, then his mind and focus is not where it should be.

That anyone can see this as Duncan's fault is shocking to me.

feldspar
04-17-2007, 01:21 PM
Quite frankly, I don't care if Duncan was saying the meanest, most inappropriate, disgusting things possible about Crawford in addition to mocking the guy. When you are sitting on the bench, you should be able to say what you want as long as it does not interfere with the game.
What's next? Is Crawford going to go to the lockerroom of the Spurs to monitor their players for mocking?


You're forgetting this little thing called "sportsmanship" which is an element that demands respect within the rules of basketball.

CMS2478
04-17-2007, 01:24 PM
You're forgetting this little thing called "sportsmanship" which is an element that demands respect within the rules of basketball.

But respect works both ways and the way I see it Crawford doesn't deserve any respect if he is watching the Spurs bench instead of officiating and challenging Duncan to a fight/argument.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 01:36 PM
You're forgetting this little thing called "sportsmanship" which is an element that demands respect within the rules of basketball.

Are you implying that Duncan wasn't showing good sportsmanship, or just correcting the previous poster?

feldspar
04-17-2007, 01:43 PM
But respect works both ways and the way I see it Crawford doesn't deserve any respect if he is watching the Spurs bench instead of officiating and challenging Duncan to a fight/argument.

I disagree. That's part of the official's job. Point blank and period.


Are you implying that Duncan wasn't showing good sportsmanship, or just correcting the previous poster?

I was responding to jma4life's assertion that the official's should not at all be concerned with sportsmanship on the part of players, whether on the bench or off.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 01:56 PM
gotcha, I'll agree, T's on the bench are sometimes necessary, but this was not one of those times

CDu
04-17-2007, 01:59 PM
Really? I didn't know this or suspect it, but I am interested to know a source for this information. I always thought of him as above that sort of bickering, which is what suprised me so much here. Perhaps the "big fundamentals" normal cool demeanor HAS fooled me. . .

Unfortunately, my source is just the announcing crew from the game, who discussed it after the ejection. Those guys may or may not be reliable, which is why I went with the "apparently" (probably should have been "allegedly").

I was also not aware of this prior to the game, but it does not surprise me. I've seen him give the demonstrative "what? me?!?!?" look after many a call in TV closeups, and the "where's the call" look after no-calls. It wouldn't surprise me what the announcers were saying is correct and that official (or just Crawford) could be annoyed with him.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 02:01 PM
according to ESPN.com, Joey Crawford has been suspended indefinitely:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=15408

From David Stern's statement: "Joey Crawford's handling of this situation failed to meet the standards of professionalism and game management we expect of NBA referees," said Stern. "Especially in light of similar prior acts by this official, a significant suspension is warranted. Although Joey is consistently rated as one of our top referees, he must be held accountable for his actions on the floor, and we will have further discussions with him following the season to be sure he understands his responsibilities."

gvtucker
04-17-2007, 02:02 PM
Crawford has been indefinitely suspended by the NBA.

It appears as though David Stern does not agree with those that are defending Crawford.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 02:10 PM
I kinda think this action by the NBA is appropriate, Stern has had issues with him before correct?

I just can't imagine how difficult it would be for him to really be an unbiased official in any games involving the Spurs, at least not without a little time to cool off, although I suppose he didn't get to where he is by holding grudges. I say make him sit for the first round, then send him to the Eastern conference games. The Spurs won't make the finals anyways, so he should be able to be back by the time they roll around. Although this plan is what I'D do, I'll be interested to see how long they hold him out.

edit: never mind, apparently he's out for the whole playoffs, the commish must be really ticked:

"Crawford's suspension will at least cover the rest of the regular season and the playoffs." from espn.com

Does this still mean Duncan will be fined as well? I would see it as appropriate, calling an official a "piece of @#$%", even after being tossed unfairly, isn't exactly the image the NBA wants to present I'm sure.

Vincetaylor
04-17-2007, 03:59 PM
Thank god he isn't an NCAA ref. He would eject Coach K every single game.

dukeENG2003
04-17-2007, 04:10 PM
you made that comment, and I know what you meant, but I couldn't help but wonder, have I EVER actually seen coach K laugh? I mean, not chuckle like he does sometimes, but flat out LOL laugh?

darthur
04-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Really? I didn't know this or suspect it, but I am interested to know a source for this information. I always thought of him as above that sort of bickering, which is what suprised me so much here. Perhaps the "big fundamentals" normal cool demeanor HAS fooled me. . .

How much do you watch the Spurs? I'm sure Tim Duncan is a good guy, but at least two or three times a game, you can see him on TV complaining to refs after calls or even no-calls. And that's not even counting the "who me?" face he loves to bust out. He definitely complains more than, say, Josh McRoberts, and even on the DBR, people were giving Josh a lot of flack.

KandG
04-17-2007, 07:28 PM
Crawford has been indefinitely suspended by the NBA.

It appears as though David Stern does not agree with those that are defending Crawford.

Well, the most strident one defending Crawford in this thread (I'm thinking of one poster in particular) was a Mavericks fan...and I suspect Stern isn't going to give that kind of fan a hearing anymore than he would for Mark Cuban. It was impossible to view Crawford's actions with any objectivity and not see them as unprofessional. I had a good Tim Duncan-sized bench laugh at some of the contortions Mavs fans went through to defend Crawford and vilify Duncan.

And FWIW, I watch enough NBA action to note that Duncan will definitely whine, though in a sneaky way a la Dean Smith, with a lot of eye-rolling and muttering. I can see how some officials don't care for it. But it doesn't even come close to warranting what Crawford pulled off.

jma4life
04-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Look, these people are HUMAN BEINGS. Human beings show emotions. Maybe Duncan complains in a sneaky way, but the guy has emotions and he cannot simply suppress them.

Maybe its not the classiest move in the world by Duncan, but its a right that he should have in my opinion. This is a clean guy, who has never been involved in any dirty incidents. He plays the game the right way and is widely recognized as one of the best "role models" in the league right now. He wasn't cursing out officials, he wasn't attacking officials. He was telling a joke to one of his teammates.

To the poster who talked about sportsmanship. Is Coack K showing sportsmanship when he scolds and cursres out (to himself, at least) officials? I don't think he deserves a technical in those situations. And I certainly don't think that Duncan deserves a technical.

I think it is certainly telling that Stern has sided with Duncan. We know that the front office is not playing games so to suspend a referee for such a long time sends a clear signal in my opinion that Duncan's actions were not worthy of the response from Crawford. That suspension seems unprecedented to me. (The refs in the Duke-FSU game were suspended what, one game?)

feldspar
04-17-2007, 08:52 PM
Look, these people are HUMAN BEINGS. Human beings show emotions. Maybe Duncan complains in a sneaky way, but the guy has emotions and he cannot simply suppress them.

Wow. So all of a sudden Timmy D is incapable of acting like an adult and surpressing unsportsmanlike conduct? The devil made 'im do it!!


Maybe its not the classiest move in the world by Duncan, but its a right that he should have in my opinion.

No one has the right in basketball to act in an unsportsmanlike manner. No one. Some may get away with it, but it is in no way a right.


This is a clean guy, who has never been involved in any dirty incidents.

Dirty? Perhaps not. But from what I hear, Duncan is one of the whinier and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league.


To the poster who talked about sportsmanship. Is Coack K showing sportsmanship when he scolds and cursres out (to himself, at least) officials? I don't think he deserves a technical in those situations. And I certainly don't think that Duncan deserves a technical.

You won't find me among the people defending K's courtside demeanor.


I think it is certainly telling that Stern has sided with Duncan.

Please. And I find it telling that Duncan was fined $25,000 by David Stern.

Spare me. It takes two to tango.

CDu
04-17-2007, 09:29 PM
Please. And I find it telling that Duncan was fined $25,000 by David Stern.

Spare me. It takes two to tango.

Duncan was given that fine for what he called Crawford AFTER being ejected (he called him a P.O.S.). So that argument doesn't really hold water. The bottom line is that if Crawford didn't do what he did that warranted punishment, Duncan wouldn't have been fined.

And this isn't the first time Crawford has had a run-in with the league. He was reprimanded for his handling of a previous playoff series in which he was, shockingly enough, too quick to impose his presence on the game with technicals.

phaedrus
04-17-2007, 09:38 PM
come on, guys. i very much value having you guys here to give a referee's perspective. it's very informative most of the time.

but i can't believe you're taking crawford's side on this. defending a referee after he challenges a player to a fight during a game and has put himself into anger management courses for his on-court behavior tarnishes your credibility every other time you defend referees.

ironically, everything i've read paints crawford as being otherwise an excellent official. but his apparent temper tantrums are indefensible.

DukieUGA
04-17-2007, 10:02 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! Joey Crawford somehow gets this idea that he is the sole vanguard of player-ref interactions and tosses Tim Duncan from the game while sitting on the bench. What a tool. I'm glad to see him get suspended indefinitely. I'm not saying that refs should back off from making tough calls, but calling a T on a guy on the bench who was in no way interfering withe game is pathetic and self-centered. He made some comments (maybe trying to get sympathy) that imply that he might not ever ref a game in the NBA again. Oh well, he's been at it for 30+ years, maybe he needs to step back a little bit.

KandG
04-17-2007, 10:14 PM
But from what I hear, Duncan is one of the whinier and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league.


From what you *hear*? Your opinion might have more credibility if you showed evidence of actually *watching* NBA basketball. To make the statement about Duncan as "one of the whinier and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league" is so laughable it defies description. Duncan whines, but he leads the league only if you are a rival fan (Suns, Mavericks, Lakers, etc) blinded with hatred and/or jealousy.

Duncan's whining is a small transgression in a league with characters like Rasheed Wallace, Zach Randolph, Carmelo Anthony, Jamaal Tinsley, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Ricky Davis, Amare Stoudamire, and Stephen Jackson. And that's just scratching the surface.

Duncan had some fault in this episode, no question, but nothing to suddenly make him the poster child for unsportsmanlike conduct, or to trigger the obscene grandstanding by Crawford. And if you chose to actually do some research, you'll see that $25,000, while a lot of money to most of us, is a standard fine this year for comments toward refs (that might constitute "verbal abuse") or comments that are highly critical about officiating. The NBA has especially tried to crack down this year on any mouthing off in an attempt to clean up its image.

feldspar
04-17-2007, 10:24 PM
come on, guys. i very much value having you guys here to give a referee's perspective. it's very informative most of the time.

but i can't believe you're taking crawford's side on this.

Who's taking Crawford's side on this? Not moi. You'll not finding me defending Joey Crawford.

I'm just not of the opinion that Duncan is guiltless in the whole fiasco.

But, feel free to continue jumping to conclusions regarding my take on the situation.

darthur
04-17-2007, 11:28 PM
From what you *hear*? Your opinion might have a shred more credibility if you showed evidence of actually *watching* NBA basketball. To make the statement about Duncan as "one of the whinier and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league" is so laughable it defies description. Duncan whines, but he leads the league only if you are a rival fan (Suns, Mavericks, Lakers, etc) blinded with hatred and/or jealousy.

Duncan's whining is a small transgression in a league with characters like Rasheed Wallace, Zach Randolph, Carmelo Anthony, Jamaal Tinsley, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Ricky Davis, Amare Stoudamire, and Stephen Jackson. And that's just scratching the surface.

I think you need to step back and reread what you wrote. You admit that Duncan whines, but then immediately jump on feldspar for "hearing" Duncan is "one of the whinier players in the league". This is a pretty tame statement all things considered - most people I know who follow the NBA would agree with it.

Also, since when did Josh Howard and Amare Stoudemire become bad guys? Admittedly I don't follow off-court nonsense much, but I have never heard anything bad about either of them.

We can (almost) all agree that Crawford was way out of line, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. It is no coincidence that Crawford went after Duncan instead of, say, Nowitzki.

KandG
04-18-2007, 12:21 AM
I think you need to step back and reread what you wrote. You admit that Duncan whines, but then immediately jump on feldspar for "hearing" Duncan is "one of the whinier players in the league". This is a pretty tame statement all things considered - most people I know who follow the NBA would agree with it.

Also, since when did Josh Howard and Amare Stoudemire become bad guys? Admittedly I don't follow off-court nonsense much, but I have never heard anything bad about either of them.

We can (almost) all agree that Crawford was way out of line, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. It is no coincidence that Crawford went after Duncan instead of, say, Nowitzki.

That's very nice and selective quoting -- omitting that Feldspar used the phrase "one of the whinier AND I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league" (caps added by me for emphasis). If it was just a question of "whinier", we might disagree as to what constitutes a disagreeable level, but it would be more minor. If we agree that language matters, the reckless phrase Feldspar used is a more insidious way of implicating Duncan in everything that happened.

Several of the players I mentioned are among the league leaders in technicals, and some of them are known for very chippy play and trash talking. None of this necessarily makes them "bad guys" in a more global sense, but if we're talking about people likely to get refs' attention for being "whiny and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.y", yes, there are players more culpable than Duncan. Again, the phrase "one of the whinier and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ier players in the league" is overstatement intended to skew the argument in a different direction...and should be called for what it is, overstatement if not outright falsehood.

Funny you mention Nowitzki. He is another player, by all accounts a generally good guy, but in the eyes of refs and opponents, a notorious complainer and whiner about calls that don't go his way. I could say that Nowitzki is "one of the whiniest and I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.iest players in the league" based on his top 10 status in technical fouls this season and my anecdotal observations. This would be silly, of course, about as silly as your implication that Duncan somehow brought this on himself, and that "it's no coincidence that Crawford went after Duncan instead of Nowitzki". I think even Mark Cuban would be left breathless by such a silly claim.

Do you have some inside knowledge of what makes Duncan more venal than other players that he should enjoy the privilege of being targeted by a ref in such a grandstanding manner?

jma4life
04-18-2007, 12:54 AM
Feldspar, obviously Duncan is not blameless. Duncan's actions were probably a little immature (though a little immaturity is not exactly the biggest offense by NBA players) and I think most reasonable people will admit that he was partly responsible.

However while Duncan's actions were immature, Crawford's actions were inexcusable. I guess immaturity will get you a 25 k fine whereas inexcusable actions will get you suspended for the duration of the season.

And while Duncan may whine a decent amount more than he should, I have never seen the guy ask an official if he wanted to fight. It seems as if Crawford cannot say the same thing in regards to his actions towards players.

Either way, I think our main disagreement was due to a slight misunderstanding. I thought you were putting the blame more or less, entirely on Duncan and I think you thought I was claiming that Duncan acted ilke a saint. In reality, I believe that Duncan's actions were immature, but that Crawford's response was vastly too extreme. (And by Crawford's response, I am not referring solely to the technical but rather to the technical in addition to the challenege to a fight)

darthur
04-18-2007, 01:55 AM
Once again, I fully believe that Crawford deserved to be reprimanded, and he was way out of line.

However, I'm sorry that I find it not-at-all surprising that Duncan's complaining got under the skin of a ref. I'm sorry that I find it not-at-all surprising that it was Duncan, not Nowitzki, who was in this altercation. I'm sorry that I honestly believe Duncan is arguably the second whiniest high-profile player in the NBA behind Rasheed Wallace.

I also think you are taking the whole thing a little too personally, so now I'll just let it rest.

CMS2478
04-18-2007, 07:30 AM
[QUOTE=feldspar;16688]I disagree. That's part of the official's job. Point blank and period.

Arguing with a player on the bench and challenging to a fight is part of the official's job...............hhhmmmmm I never knew that. ;)

dukeENG2003
04-18-2007, 08:39 AM
I'll buy that Duncan reacts, but he does a good job of only reacting at appropriate times (on questionable calls, true whiners/complainers react on ALL calls against them, like Jared Dudley), and he does so without making a big deal out of it. Again, the "who, me?" is what I would regard as the next most sportsmanlike way to react to a questionable call outside of a total poker face. You cannot expect a total non-reaction out of players, its just not reasonable. What you CAN expect is for them to not get in the refs face about it after every call, and Tim Duncan rarely does this.

IMO, there are two seperate skills to handling a bad call. One is simply shaking it off and not showing emotion, which he isn't the best at. The other is not complaining and whining TO THE REF about it, which I feel he is pretty good at (he usually keeps it to himself).