Strange context of Delly and Korver incident

[drzachary]

Dellavedova is history's greatest monster, and those who defend that hobbit should be imprisoned.

[nsacmercury]

Like I said, expect people to dive at Lebron's legs and then say it was an accident if this is the way the game is going to be played.  Guys get ejected for trying to shake Delly off their leg when he is clamped on it and he escapes with nothing.  He gets nothing when he dives into guys legs and then gets a tech that is completely meaningless when issues in the context of ejecting the other team's best player.

 

If I were GS and Delly started doing this in that series (and frankly we should expect to see it at this point), I would send some scrub in and tell them to be balls-to-the-wall aggressive diving in at Lebron trying to poke the ball away, etc. and if that scrub happened to hit his leg I would expect nothing more than Delly has gotten -- except that we all know the league would protect Lebron in a way that it won't protect Gibson, Korver and Horford.  

 

This is the whole reason that refs are supposed to check reckless play - because it can injure people regardless of intent.  Guys who consistently engage in reckless play (Delly) are dirty regardless of whether they are actually intending to hurt someone.

 

 

If there is a loose ball in LeBron's area, I fully expect to see players dive toward the loose ball (whether Delly is on the team or not). And if LeBron fails to do what players are coached to do since they were children, he may very well find himself injured with no repercussions for the opposing team.

 

Fans on both sides are starting with a viewpoint and interpreting incidents to support their viewpoint. That is not unexpected. Delly has engaged in 3 frequently discussed questionable incidents in 14 playoff basketball games. Teague has as at least 3 incidents in the same span that I am aware of (a flagrant 1 for striking Beal in the head, an elbow to the head of Delly on an inbound, and a knee to the face of Delly on another dive Delly made). I do not expect you to label those 3 events as a consistent pattern for Teague. I don't personally either. Basketball is a physical game. And I strongly suspect if you put enough focus on any one player, you are going to find a multitude of questionable and aggressive plays. Delly has come into focus because on his questionable plays, he has succeeded in getting under the opposing players' skin enough to provoke them into a response. As I believe the unprovoked elbow by Teague in Game 1 and the Teague foul on him in Game 4 demonstrate, he has a knack for annoying opposing players while playing 100% within the rules.

 

 

 

Aaaand here we are. You haven't read my posts. I haven't called Dellavedova dirty. Hell, the post I dug up from last week showed I said the play where Dellavedova injured Kyle was not dirty. You're making up shit about what I have said either because you haven't read it, you can't understand the English language, or you're intentionally obtuse. I'm making the distinction that Calves fans are illogical mouth breathers when they defend Dellavedova and yet chastise Olynyk for incidents that actually are similar. You're out here defending Dellavedova as dirty against me (which I never said he was), while still chastising Olynyk (which I never said he was/wasn't dirty) with silly rhetoric of how a basketball play can be "illegal" versus "legal" even though that is well outside the realm of anything that matters as evidenced by Bruce Bowen's "legal" plays.

Irony at it's finest.

 

So this is what passes for civil discussion? Calling me, or perhaps you are referring to other Cavs fans, illogical mouth breathers? I apologize though because I failed to register you were quoting your own post. The point really hasn't changed though honestly. Neither of really know that Delly wasn't setting out with intent to injure. But the elaboration about diving is obviously unnecessary to direct at you given your interpretation of the play (assuming of course it hasn't changed), so I'm sorry for that.

 

I did however give you a clear explanation for how the Olynyk and Delly plays differ. The NBA allows one play and does not allow the other. You can personally reject that justification, but explain to me how I am being hypocritical if I apply that standard in every instance. For instance, I did not complain about the JR Smith ejection or suspension against the Celtics. JR Smith engaged in a dirty and illegal play and got what he deserved. It sucked to see as a fan, but I did not apply a different standard to it.

[Guest]

So this is what passes for civil discussion? Calling me, or perhaps you are referring to other Cavs fans, illogical mouth breathers?

I could have simply told you that you were wrong, but that wouldn't be as colorful and fun. And you were wrong for having associated me with claiming Dellavedova as dirty.

Your defense of how Olynyk differs is also laughable to me, bringing forth the interpretation that I did. It's like, you might as well have said that "Olynyk did it at home while Dellavedova did it on the road" because that appears to make just as much sense. Whatever the hell "legal" means is pointless especially in the context that the two incidents were discussed due to RECKLESSNESS (note I'm not discussing dirty). Not all "illegal" plays are reckless. Not all reckless plays are "illegal." Some "legal" plays are reckless. Some reckless plays are "legal." So again, to use the criteria of "legal" to distinguish between the two plays is laughable and illogical.

[nsacmercury]

I could have simply told you that you were wrong, but that wouldn't be as colorful and fun. And you were wrong for having associated me with claiming Dellavedova as dirty.

Your defense of how Olynyk differs is also laughable to me, bringing forth the interpretation that I did. It's like, you might as well have said that "Olynyk did it at home while Dellavedova did it on the road" because that appears to make just as much sense. Whatever the hell "legal" means is pointless especially in the context that the two incidents were discussed due to RECKLESSNESS (note I'm not discussing dirty). Not all "illegal" plays are reckless. Not all reckless plays are "illegal." Some "legal" plays are reckless. Some reckless plays are "legal." So again, to use the criteria of "legal" to distinguish between the two plays is laughable and illogical.

 

If it's friendly ribbing, I have no problem with it. And as I said, I apologize for lumping you in with the default way I expect Atlanta fans to interpret the Korver play.

 

To me, you basically have 4 categories of play. A play can be legal with no intent to injure someone (we both would seem to feel the Delly dive fell into this bucket). A play can be legal with intent to injure someone (you would point to the Bowen example). A play can be illegal with no intent to injure someone (I would describe the Delly leg lock on Gibson this way - bush league but not malicious). And a play can be illegal with intent to injure someone (many Cavs fans would suggest the Olynyk play falls into that category).

 

I don't see how classifying plays this way makes as much sense as arbitrarily deeming something a road injury vs a home injury. If we are looking at a single instance, intent to injure always makes a play dirty - whether it was legal or not. Unintentionally harming a player while performing a legal basketball play makes a play unfortunate at best and reckless at worst. And unintentionally harming a player while performing an illegal basketball play is reckless or worse.

 

But again, I don't see the supposed hypocrisy.

[AHF]

You can't play the "legal" semantics game here and expect anyone to buy it.  

 

I like that you are justifying Delly as "100% within the rules" when he was given a Tech.  A T isn't given for something that is within the rules.

 

Then you use the same description to say that his leg lock of Gibson was entirely within the rules when it so clearly is not.  I hope I don't need to quote the rule book to tell you why wrapping your legs around another player's knees to restrict his movement isn't legal.

 

If you are relying on the fact that he wasn't always called for fouls (unlike the Horford situation) and think something is legal just because a whistle isn't blown on a play, you probably think it is legal to take more than two steps because it isn't called.

 

 

If you go rewatch a lot of Heat basketball, you'll find that a lot of illegal stuff doesn't get called on teams led by Lebron James.  Delly should enjoy the time he is protected by James' shadow.  Any team with James at this point in his career is going to get the halo effect from officials.  He won't get that type of leniency if he moves to some Non-Kingly team for his next contract.

[Guest]

If it's friendly ribbing, I have no problem with it. And as I said, I apologize for lumping you in with the default way I expect Atlanta fans to interpret the Korver play.

 

To me, you basically have 4 categories of play. A play can be legal with no intent to injure someone (we both would seem to feel the Delly dive fell into this bucket). A play can be legal with intent to injure someone (you would point to the Bowen example). A play can be illegal with no intent to injure someone (I would describe the Delly leg lock on Gibson this way - bush league but not malicious). And a play can be illegal with intent to injure someone (many Cavs fans would suggest the Olynyk play falls into that category).

W-O-W.

OK, so now you're conceding that the "legal" argument is pretty much bunk. Because one play is "legal" while the other is "illegal" has 0 to do with reckless behavior or how dirty it is. Now at this stage, you've said "oh but see Olynyk had intent while Dellavedova did not have intent."

HOLD UP. Didn't you just mention this before:

Again, unless you have legitimate insight into the intent of Delly, how can you say with certainty that his dive was anything other than "reckless" (a term that should be fair to describe a play where a player unnecessarily strikes the head of an individual with a serious pre-existing spinal condition)?

Neither of really know that Delly wasn't setting out with intent to injure.

AH. So we don't know Dellavedova's intent in one context, but in the next freaking post you claim that the difference between Dellavedova and Olynyk is that the criteria has shifted from being "legal" AND "intent."

So now it's down to "OLYNYK INTENDED TO DO IT" but then "DELLAVEDOVA DIDN'T INTEND TO DO IT" where the basis for assuming the intent is what? Because Dellavedova said he didn't intend to do it and Olynyk did? Oh that's right, Olynyk said the intent was there. Olynyk doesn't have any other "dirty" incidents to him. Does Dellavedova?

Again. If you're defending Dellavedova, then logically you have to defend Olynyk.

I don't like repeating myself, so this is it for me in this thread.

[Guest]

You can't play the "legal" semantics game here and expect anyone to buy it.

His best argument was to stick with your first interpretation, that fans are inherently biased which produces the seemingly illogical result. Except, as I reread his posts, I don't see how you get the interpretation that he thinks fans are biased in favor of their players...he only makes mention of that before I brought up the parallels between Dellavedova and Olynyk. So I think you're actually misinterpreting as he does not bring up the bias of fans in my Olynyk observation.

I'm pointing out the same amount of hypocrisy from the Calves fans as well as the reaction from Calf players. Laaabron references how dirty and dangerous Olynyk is .... then a similar play? Oh he goes uber defensive on "his boy" Delly. Puh-leaze. Anyone with critical thinking skills can see through it.

[Guest]

Here's the deal..Calves fans are allowed to get pissy and say what Olynyk did was premeditated and intentional but Hawks fans shouldn't do the same about DirtyDova. All this legal, illegal mumojumbo is obscuring the facts - he has a history.

Edited May 28, 2015 by JayBirdHawk

[nsacmercury]

You can't play the "legal" semantics game here and expect anyone to buy it.  

 

I like that you are justifying Delly as "100% within the rules" when he was given a Tech.  A T isn't given for something that is within the rules.

 

Then you use the same description to say that his leg lock of Gibson was entirely within the rules when it so clearly is not.  I hope I don't need to quote the rule book to tell you why wrapping your legs around another player's knees to restrict his movement isn't legal.

 

If you are relying on the fact that he wasn't always called for fouls (unlike the Horford situation) and think something is legal just because a whistle isn't blown on a play, you probably think it is legal to take more than two steps because it isn't called.

 

 

If you go rewatch a lot of Heat basketball, you'll find that a lot of illegal stuff doesn't get called on teams led by Lebron James.  Delly should enjoy the time he is protected by James' shadow.  Any team with James at this point in his career is going to get the halo effect from officials.  He won't get that type of leniency if he moves to some Non-Kingly team for his next contract.

 

What exactly are you referring to? I specifically classified the Delly leg lock on Gibson as illegal, I called it bush league, I said it deserved a tech (and noted it was missed by the refs during the game). I really am confused as to where you could have possibly gotten the notion that I thought the leg lock was within the rules.

 

I brought up legality solely because I was questioned on what the difference was between Delly and Olynyk. One player injured another performing an illegal play. The other one did it performing a legal one. That is a rather marked difference (continued below).

 

 

W-O-W.

OK, so now you're conceding that the "legal" argument is pretty much bunk. Because one play is "legal" while the other is "illegal" has 0 to do with reckless behavior or how dirty it is. Now at this stage, you've said "oh but see Olynyk had intent while Dellavedova did not have intent."

HOLD UP. Didn't you just mention this before:

AH. So we don't know Dellavedova's intent in one context, but in the next freaking post you claim that the difference between Dellavedova and Olynyk is that the criteria has shifted from being "legal" AND "intent."

So now it's down to "OLYNYK INTENDED TO DO IT" but then "DELLAVEDOVA DIDN'T INTEND TO DO IT" where the basis for assuming the intent is what? Because Dellavedova said he didn't intend to do it and Olynyk did? Oh that's right, Olynyk said the intent was there. Olynyk doesn't have any other "dirty" incidents to him. Does Dellavedova?

Again. If you're defending Dellavedova, then logically you have to defend Olynyk.

I don't like repeating myself, so this is it for me in this thread.

 

How exactly am I conceding the legal argument? I never said all legal plays are clean. I never said all illegal plays are dirty. Now you are the one making assumptions. I fleshed it out so you could better understand. Legality matters because with an absence of known intent (as we have in this case), an illegal action that hurts others is worse than a legal action that hurts others. I'll use an analogy since you seem to be struggling to understand my viewpoint.

 

A child's mother tells him he is allowed to play catch with his brother, but he is not allowed to wrestle with him. If the brother accidentally gets hit with the baseball cause he fails to catch it, a good mother isn't going to punish the child for it (the Delly-Korver example). But if the child wrestles with his brother and accidentally hurts him, wouldn't you fully expect some punishment for the disobedient child (the Olynyk incident)?

 

As for my own personal feelings on Olynyk, I never stated I know he intended to do Love harm. In the same way you said you didn't think Delly was intending to injure Korver, my personal feeling is that Olynyk was trying to at the very least cause Love some pain. I fully acknowledge that my feelings on the matter may not be factually correct.

 

But the point is when you do something so far outside of the realm of what is considered a legal basketball play, you are responsible for the consequences regardless of intent. Olynyk's play was illegal, it had foreseeable consequences, and it resulted in an injury to another player. Olynyk could have avoided injuring another player by not performing an illegal arm-bar. To avoid injuring Korver, Delly would have had to ignore years of what coaches told him to do in that circumstance.

 

You are trying to assign an inconsistency to the logic that is simply not there. You may not agree with the logic, but it is not hypocritical when people consistently apply the logical conditions they are operating under. Where have I failed to consistently apply my logic (not yours) to situations that have been discussed? I already noted that Crowder got injured on an illegal play by JR that had intent to hurt him. I could have seen an even longer suspension for that frankly. And I will add to this, had Gibson been injured by Delly's bush league leg lock, he should have been suspended regardless of intent.

[AHF]

This is the type of quote I couldn't reconcile with the fact that he clearly does not stay 100% within the rules:

 

As I believe the unprovoked elbow by Teague in Game 1 and the Teague foul on him in Game 4 demonstrate, he has a knack for annoying opposing players while playing 100% within the rules.

 

Clearly his illegal play also annoys players.

 

You are right, though, that you acknowledge some of his blatantly illegal play in other sections of this discussion.  

[nsacmercury]

This is the type of quote I couldn't reconcile with the fact that he clearly does not stay 100% within the rules:

 

 

 

 

Clearly his illegal play also annoys players.

 

You are right, though, that you acknowledge some of his blatantly illegal play in other sections of this discussion.  

 

It was a communication breakdown then. I was trying to convey that even while playing 100% within the rules, he is very capable of getting under opposing players skin and provoking reactions. He is just that type of player, and it may be the one talent he has that others lack haha.

 

He clearly works hard just to barely stay in the league (even a good percentage of Cavs fans wanted him gone during the season). If he is setting out with the intent to injure others, I hope he gets what is coming to him and find himself quickly out of the league.

[AHF]

 If he is setting out with the intent to injure others, I hope he gets what is coming to him and find himself quickly out of the league.

 

Agreed!  I reach the same conclusion if he is just being reckless about the risk of injuring guys as well.  

Edited May 29, 2015 by AHF

[Andante]

After reading all the posts, all I've got to say is where there's smoke, there's fire. If he keeps getting into similar situations like this, then something is off.