PDA

View Full Version : Bynum draws 5 game suspension



Rudy
05-10-2011, 07:48 PM
For his forearm shiver to Berea:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-10/lakers-center-andrew-bynum-suspended-five-games-for-barea-foul?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl6|sec3_lnk3|62098

Is it enough? I found two other instances of dangerous forearm shivers by Bynum on players who were in the air in a youtube search, one on Michael Beasley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU7RiLERJ-Y and one on Gerald Wallace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNV0yjkX2w. IMO 5 games is not nearly enough when the player has a repeated history of this kind of dirty, dangerous actions.

What say you?

mkline09
05-10-2011, 07:56 PM
For his forearm shiver to Berea:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-05-10/lakers-center-andrew-bynum-suspended-five-games-for-barea-foul?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl6|sec3_lnk3|62098

Is it enough? I found two other instances of dangerous forearm shivers by Bynum on players who were in the air in a youtube search, one on Michael Beasley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU7RiLERJ-Y and one on Gerald Wallace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNV0yjkX2w. IMO 5 games is not nearly enough when the player has a repeated history of this kind of dirty, dangerous actions.

What say you?

Not sure where it stacks up in the history of dirty plays but I think it was bad enough to warrant more than a 5-game suspension.

SuperTurkey
05-10-2011, 08:06 PM
Not sure where it stacks up in the history of dirty plays but I think it was bad enough to warrant more than a 5-game suspension.

Agreed. Should have been 15/20.

fgb
05-10-2011, 08:16 PM
it's really a joke. how much does bynum really care about the first 5 or 10 games of the season? if stern really wanted to send a message (to the players as well as the teams), he'd suspend him for the first 5 games of the playoffs.

something that really affects teams' postseasons, and a player's wallet (especially during contract negotiations), and there'd be a real incentive not to pull dirty crap like that forearm.

fgb
05-10-2011, 08:17 PM
i meant, for his next five playoff games. if his team gets swept, it goes into the next postseason.

_Gary
05-10-2011, 10:18 PM
It really is a total joke. Anything less than a 20 game suspension means nothing, IMHO. This guy has as long of a dirty history on those type of plays as anyone I can think of playing right now. And the really disturbing part is his doing this when guys are in the air and completely helpless. I hate to say this, but I'd love to see another big guy in the league knock him out at some point. Yes, I said it. KNOCK - HIM - OUT.

devildeac
05-10-2011, 11:13 PM
Agreed. Should have been 15/20.

Totally classless play. I'd agree with 15-20 also.

moonpie23
05-11-2011, 12:07 AM
good lord.....it's called a HARD FOUL

the wussificatioin of pro sports continues...

Cell-R
05-11-2011, 12:34 AM
good lord.....it's called a HARD FOUL

the wussificatioin of pro sports continues...

A "hard foul" would entail at least attempting to block/steal the ball. That was not a "hard foul".

If you want to watch something similar to UFC, you're watching the wrong sport. Not sure how it's "wussificatioin" to suspend a player for intentionally decking someone, especially when he could have been injured.

loldevilz
05-11-2011, 01:40 AM
his real penalty will be getting traded to orlando for dwight howard

uh_no
05-11-2011, 02:06 AM
A "hard foul" would entail at least attempting to block/steal the ball. That was not a "hard foul".

If you want to watch something similar to UFC, you're watching the wrong sport. Not sure how it's "wussificatioin" to suspend a player for intentionally decking someone, especially when he could have been injured.

hate to bring this up, but how about intentionally stepping on someone? how many games does that deserve?

pfrduke
05-11-2011, 02:33 AM
For what it's worth, this is the longest suspension for on court conduct since the fight between Denver and the Knicks in 2006.

As a further point of comparison, during the Pacers-Pistons brawl in 2004, Anthony Johnson, who had been on the bench in street clothes, punched a fan - he got a 6 game suspension. Punching a fan scores quite a bit higher than Bynum's foul on the reprehensibility scale, in my opinion.

Prior to this suspension of Bynum, no one had received more than a 3-game suspension for a flagrant foul since at least 1994 - all other on-court suspensions of 5 or more games were for fights (except in 2003, when Rasheed Wallace and Jerry Sloan separately earned 7 game suspensions for threatening/shoving referees), and several fights have drawn suspensions of fewer than 5 games; indeed, most fight-related suspensions have been fewer than 5 games.

Bynum's foul was egregious and merited a suspension. But saying it merits a quarter of a season suspended is ridiculous - only Kermit Washington (shattered Rudy T's jaw), Latrell Sprewell (choked his coach), and Ron Artest/Stephen Jackson (Palace brawl, including attacking fans) have had 20+ game suspensions in league history. Suspending him for anything more than 5 games would be dramatically out of line with at least 20 years of league suspension practices - heck, you could argue that 5 games for a flagrant foul (albeit a dangerous one) is out of line with league practices when only one other person (Danny Fortson) has earned even a 3-game suspension for a foul. Even if you agree that Andrew Bynum's foul was the worst flagrant foul in league history, a 5-game suspension (which, by the way, will cost Bynum ~$925,000 in lost pay) is pretty much the absolute justifiable ceiling. If he appeals, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see it reduced.


hate to bring this up, but how about intentionally stepping on someone? how many games does that deserve?

I have no idea what your obsession is with repeatedly bringing up Christian Laettner's conduct from 20 years ago, but for the sake of playing along, it deserves a technical foul. Which, incidentally, is what it got.

sporthenry
05-11-2011, 02:34 AM
hate to bring this up, but how about intentionally stepping on someone? how many games does that deserve?

Or breaking someone's nose with an elbow? That is what happens when you get embarrassed in a game and you sense your opponent are trying to embarass you even more.

4decadedukie
05-11-2011, 06:49 AM
How about a one year NBA suspension and criminal prosecution? I was amazed at the hit, which (IMHO) clearly was intentional and FAR beyond any reasonable limits for on-court contact. The fact is -- not that it will ever happen -- the police and state's attorney should be conducting an investigation now. Okay, that sounds crazy; however, a blow of that sort could, and tragically someday might, badly injure an athlete (hit, dazed or unconscious, smashes into the floor, breaks his neck, with permanent paralysis). Admittedly, it's not likely, but neither is it an impossibility.

4decadedukie
05-11-2011, 07:00 AM
Or breaking someone's nose with an elbow? That is what happens when you get embarrassed in a game and you sense your opponent are trying to embarass you even more.

Oh really -- I watched that live (as we all did), as well as dozens of times repalyed (over the last several years), I do not believe it was intentional. It certainly was spectacular, inflammatory, and guaranteed to make every Tar Heel (and most Carolinians and reporters apoplectic); however it was (IMHO) tough play that resulted in an inadvertent hit.

BD80
05-11-2011, 07:45 AM
Agreed. Should have been 15/20.

Retired Cleveland State grad Jim Les was suspended for 20 games for Bynum's hit should Les ever return to the league.

moonpie23
05-11-2011, 07:59 AM
Or breaking someone's nose with an elbow? That is what happens when you get embarrassed in a game and you sense your opponent are trying to embarass you even more.

if you're talking about gerald henderson's clean block of all ball on the unc player, that nose was busted when he hit the floor..

kong123
05-11-2011, 08:17 AM
Or breaking someone's nose with an elbow? That is what happens when you get embarrassed in a game and you sense your opponent are trying to embarass you even more.

I believe this is an accurate description of what happened. I doubt many other Duke fans would ever admit that the play was something other than just a clean but hard foul.

BD80
05-11-2011, 08:51 AM
Or breaking someone's nose with an elbow? That is what happens when you get embarrassed in a game and you sense your opponent are trying to embarass you even more.


I believe this is an accurate description of what happened. I doubt many other Duke fans would ever admit that the play was something other than just a clean but hard foul.

Both are true. It was a clean play that resulted from Hansbleeder trying to "put an exclamation point" on the victory and Gerald refusing to allow that to happen.

MCFinARL
05-11-2011, 08:52 AM
I believe this is an accurate description of what happened. I doubt many other Duke fans would ever admit that the play was something other than just a clean but hard foul.

Well, of course, because that is the nature of being a fan. Actual research studies following fans of pro teams have documented that fans of each team see most calls in the way that is most flattering or desirable to their team--a call that goes against their team is wrong, a call that goes in favor of their team is right--and neutral observers tend to break more evenly on all but the most obvious calls.

I also have watched video of that incident many times, and I can see that from some angles it can be interpreted that Henderson is not making a play for the ball but just looking to bang into Tyler (I don't think there is any video that can reasonably be interpreted as clearly indicating he intended to injure him--but "reasonableness" may also be in the eye of the beholder). But from many other angles, it looks clearly like he is playing for the ball and the collision is incidental, however hard it was.

Because I don't recall any other evidence supporting the idea that Gerald Henderson was a particularly rough player or would deliberately try to hurt someone (or even deliberately take a significant risk of hurting someone), it makes sense to me to believe the extensive video evidence that supports the idea that it was an accident, rather than the evidence that can be interpreted the other way. But I don't expect ever to convince a Carolina fan to see it my way.

And, really, I'm not sure what the point of revisiting either this or the Laettner incident in this thread is (acknowledging, Kong, that you weren't the first person to bring these up)--is the idea that, if you are a Duke fan, you are not entitled to have an opinion about Andrew Bynum unless you have the "correct" opinion about those incidents--which happened at a different level of the sport, in different game circumstances, and were dealt with as the game officials believed appropriate? Because that feels a little more like a playground taunt than a logical argument.

darjum
05-11-2011, 09:02 AM
good lord.....it's called a HARD FOUL

the wussificatioin of pro sports continues...

Obviously it's hard to justify Bynum's conduct, the foul was hard, but the situation is what made it worse. Getting your coconuts handed to you when you're the two time defending champs and going out in such a classless manner made Bynum's foul seem worse than it was.

Now this foul in today's NBA would warrant a large suspension:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r6vXeOfyQ

Makes what Bynum did look like a love tap.

BD80
05-11-2011, 09:11 AM
Obviously it's hard to justify Bynum's conduct, the foul was hard, but the situation is what made it worse. Getting your coconuts handed to you when you're the two time defending champs and going out in such a classless manner made Bynum's foul seem worse than it was.

Now this foul in today's NBA would warrant a large suspension:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7r6vXeOfyQ

Makes what Bynum did look like a love tap.

Are you kidding? Didn't you notice the uniform McHale was wearing? There would be no suspension.

Word is that if Bynum goes to the Celts (or the Heat) this summer, the suspension will be revoked.

If Bynum leaves the Lakers for any other team, the suspension will be upped to 15 games, unless he goes to the Pistons - then it becomes 25 games.

darjum
05-11-2011, 09:17 AM
If Bynum leaves the Lakers for any other team, the suspension will be upped to 15 games, unless he goes to the Pistons - then it becomes 25 games.

Didn't you see the cup of beer get thrown at him on the way out, if he goes to the Pistons he's done for the season.

BobbyFan
05-11-2011, 12:38 PM
Five games is about right given the NBA's recent standards. It's hard to justify 20 games for Bynum when Jermaine O' Neal got 25 for taking part in the ugly Pacers-Pistons brawl and clocking a fan.

However, I don't understand the relevance of some of the other incidents brought up in this thread.

sporthenry
05-11-2011, 01:06 PM
And, really, I'm not sure what the point of revisiting either this or the Laettner incident in this thread is (acknowledging, Kong, that you weren't the first person to bring these up)--is the idea that, if you are a Duke fan, you are not entitled to have an opinion about Andrew Bynum unless you have the "correct" opinion about those incidents--which happened at a different level of the sport, in different game circumstances, and were dealt with as the game officials believed appropriate? Because that feels a little more like a playground taunt than a logical argument.

The point of bringing up those situations is that while each of those is different situations, these people's allegiances are different and as you mentioned, people see their teams in a different light. So I just find it ridiculous these people want him to miss a 1/4 of the season when Duke players have had some pretty bad plays themselves albeit arguably not as bad. Bynum's play was worse than G's b/c G made a play on the ball but both players were willing to make sure at all costs the other player didn't finish the play.

And I don't buy into the argument it is a different level or situation. That just seems like a cop out. Bynum admitted he made a mistake but I'm sure the argument is a bit similar when G committed his foul in that his team had lost yet the other team still had Dirk/Hansbrough and Co. out there.

pfrduke
05-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Five games is about right given the NBA's recent standards. It's hard to justify 20 games for Bynum when Jermaine O' Neal got 25 for taking part in the ugly Pacers-Pistons brawl and clocking a fan.

However, I don't understand the relevance of some of the other incidents brought up in this thread.

And O'Neal's got reduced to 15 on appeal.

brevity
05-11-2011, 01:48 PM
For what it's worth, this is the longest suspension for on court conduct since the fight between Denver and the Knicks in 2006.

As a further point of comparison, during the Pacers-Pistons brawl in 2004, Anthony Johnson, who had been on the bench in street clothes, punched a fan - he got a 6 game suspension. Punching a fan scores quite a bit higher than Bynum's foul on the reprehensibility scale, in my opinion.

Prior to this suspension of Bynum, no one had received more than a 3-game suspension for a flagrant foul since at least 1994 - all other on-court suspensions of 5 or more games were for fights (except in 2003, when Rasheed Wallace and Jerry Sloan separately earned 7 game suspensions for threatening/shoving referees), and several fights have drawn suspensions of fewer than 5 games; indeed, most fight-related suspensions have been fewer than 5 games.

Bynum's foul was egregious and merited a suspension. But saying it merits a quarter of a season suspended is ridiculous - only Kermit Washington (shattered Rudy T's jaw), Latrell Sprewell (choked his coach), and Ron Artest/Stephen Jackson (Palace brawl, including attacking fans) have had 20+ game suspensions in league history. Suspending him for anything more than 5 games would be dramatically out of line with at least 20 years of league suspension practices - heck, you could argue that 5 games for a flagrant foul (albeit a dangerous one) is out of line with league practices when only one other person (Danny Fortson) has earned even a 3-game suspension for a foul. Even if you agree that Andrew Bynum's foul was the worst flagrant foul in league history, a 5-game suspension (which, by the way, will cost Bynum ~$925,000 in lost pay) is pretty much the absolute justifiable ceiling. If he appeals, I wouldn't be at all shocked to see it reduced.

Fantastic summation and analysis. Before I read this I felt that Andrew Bynum's punishment was woefully short. Now, given the historical context, I find it somewhat acceptable, and (more importantly) feel slightly less angry about the incident.

The important thing, of course, is that the Lakers got eliminated. I'll have to remember that as Bynum's penalty gets reduced on appeal, and Ryan Seacrest (http://ryanseacrest.com/category/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-blog/) reimburses him for any financial loss (for taking the attention off Lamar Odom's cheap shot).

MCFinARL
05-11-2011, 01:56 PM
And I don't buy into the argument it is a different level or situation. That just seems like a cop out. Bynum admitted he made a mistake but I'm sure the argument is a bit similar when G committed his foul in that his team had lost yet the other team still had Dirk/Hansbrough and Co. out there.

I didn't mean to suggest that behavior at the two different levels could never be compared, only that different rules apply to the different levels and therefore, even if one thought that the behavior was equally culpable (which I don't, as I noted, but others apparently do), it didn't seem especially useful to use college examples as a standard for deciding the appropriateness of the consequences dished out in the NBA (or vice versa).

DukieInKansas
05-11-2011, 02:02 PM
The point of bringing up those situations is that while each of those is different situations, these people's allegiances are different and as you mentioned, people see their teams in a different light. So I just find it ridiculous these people want him to miss a 1/4 of the season when Duke players have had some pretty bad plays themselves albeit arguably not as bad. Bynum's play was worse than G's b/c G made a play on the ball but both players were willing to make sure at all costs the other player didn't finish the play.

And I don't buy into the argument it is a different level or situation. That just seems like a cop out. Bynum admitted he made a mistake but I'm sure the argument is a bit similar when G committed his foul in that his team had lost yet the other team still had Dirk/Hansbrough and Co. out there.

I think people are factoring in Bynum's prior bad acts in thinking his suspension should be longer.

theAlaskanBear
05-12-2011, 09:24 AM
I think the suspension is appropriate if a bit on on the harsh end. By missing 5 games next season Bynum will lose $700,000. NBA players dont get payed during suspensions. You guys think that foul was worth a million dollars?

_Gary
05-12-2011, 09:29 AM
Fantastic summation and analysis. Before I read this I felt that Andrew Bynum's punishment was woefully short. Now, given the historical context, I find it somewhat acceptable, and (more importantly) feel slightly less angry about the incident.

Under normal conditions I would agree that the summation was appropriate. But I don't believe the original poster has taken into consideration the fact that Bynum has done this multiple times - to smaller guys than himself - while they were helpless in the air!!! That warrants a much stiffer sentence in my book if the league is looking to send a message that this type of thuggery won't be tolerated. I still say 15 to 20 games suspended is more appropriate.

slower
05-12-2011, 10:19 AM
good lord.....it's called a HARD FOUL

the wussificatioin of pro sports continues...

Oh, well, there's always hockey if you need it.

pfrduke
05-12-2011, 11:10 AM
Under normal conditions I would agree that the summation was appropriate. But I don't believe the original poster has taken into consideration the fact that Bynum has done this multiple times - to smaller guys than himself - while they were helpless in the air!!! That warrants a much stiffer sentence in my book if the league is looking to send a message that this type of thuggery won't be tolerated. I still say 15 to 20 games suspended is more appropriate.

He's had one prior act that was deemed worthy of suspension by the league, and he got a 2-game suspension for it. That means his 5-game suspension more than doubles the length (and thus the direct cost to Bynum) of his previous punishment. And, as I pointed out earlier, his suspension was nearly twice as long as any suspension for any flagrant foul in the last ~20 years (and probably ever - I just couldn't find information going beyond 1994). I would argue that the length of this suspension is already much stiffer sentence than would have been given if this was a first-time offense, and takes into account his prior bad acts.

Again, a suspension of 15-20 games would mean that this foul is the near-equivalent of the single most devastating punch thrown in the game's history (Kermit Washington), a player choking his coach (Sprewell), or a the single worst brawl - including violence against fans - in league history (Artest/Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal, who got 15 games). It would also mean that it was worse than many incidents of on-court fighting.

His foul was egregiously bad and unquestionably cheap, and he is being punished very steeply for it. When compared with an entire history of league suspension practices, however, I can't see any possible justification for a 15-20 game suspension for this conduct.

Lennies
05-12-2011, 12:29 PM
This is the third time that Bynum has tried to hurt a player rather than making a play on the ball, I'm not sure he should even be in the league anymore.

2009 Bynum nails Gerald Wallace breaking ribs and collapsing a lung.
2011 Bynum nails Michael Beasley, very scary looking, but Beasley was ok.
2011 Bynum nails Barrea.

BD80
05-12-2011, 12:45 PM
I think the suspension is appropriate if a bit on on the harsh end. By missing 5 games next season Bynum will lose $700,000. NBA players dont get payed during suspensions. You guys think that foul was worth a million dollars?

Considering he gets paid $140,000 per game for an 82 game season? Yes. He put another player's career on the line and he showed no remorse at the time. He's done it before and continues despite previous suspension.

tommy
05-12-2011, 12:51 PM
I think the suspension is appropriate if a bit on on the harsh end. By missing 5 games next season Bynum will lose $700,000. NBA players dont get payed during suspensions. You guys think that foul was worth a million dollars?

He's making like $13 million a year. He won't even notice it. Which means it'll have no deterrent effect. Meaningless.

And I understand the posters who have referenced egregious acts in the past (Kermit Washington, Sprewell, the Pacers-Pistons brawl, etc.) and argued that what Bynum did doesn't deserve 15 or 20 games because it doesn't compare to what Washington, Artest, O'Neal, Sprewell, etc did.

I would say that the entire framework of what is appropriate punishment for this type of violence should change. It's a different era now, and the NBA has to be sending much stronger messages than it has in the past that this kind of assault will not be tolerated. Bynum should get 20 games. And if he does it again, it should be 40. That would get his, and others' attention. Five games means absolutely nothing.

And another thing: whatever the length of the punishment, if the suspendable act was committed during the playoffs, the suspension should be served in the playoffs. For instance, if a player does something like this in the second round of the playoffs, his suspension should begin immediately and carry through the rest of that year's playoffs, however many games his team plays. If the team doesn't play enough games to complete the suspension, then it continues in the next year's playoffs, beginning in the second round, until the full number of games have been missed.

Matches
05-12-2011, 03:21 PM
And another thing: whatever the length of the punishment, if the suspendable act was committed during the playoffs, the suspension should be served in the playoffs. For instance, if a player does something like this in the second round of the playoffs, his suspension should begin immediately and carry through the rest of that year's playoffs, however many games his team plays. If the team doesn't play enough games to complete the suspension, then it continues in the next year's playoffs, beginning in the second round, until the full number of games have been missed.

Now THIS I agree with. I think 5 games is plenty, but they should be games that matter, not meaningless November games against Sacramento.

Devilsfan
05-12-2011, 06:40 PM
Howard might have given him ten games but he took off his shirt so we couldn't tell he played for an NBA team thus lessoning the penalty.