Artest Interviewed On TNT

E

ezekielbear

Bench
Said he talked to Stu Jackson today, and was given the reason of "past actions" as to why it was taken as far as a suspension. Ron commented it wasn't fair, but, what are you gonna do about it...

What...a...joke.

Make up a reason...jeezus. Not "past actions".

Way to go Stu.
 
Look, I think the suspension is bogus, but "past actions" is at least part of a legit explanation. There needs to be more than just past actions, but come on this is nothing new - why do you think RonRon lost the whole season last year? Past actions - the NBA had just reached the end of their tether with him and wanted to send a strong message. The point is, there IS a cumulative effect, and guys with pasts SHOULD be treated with less leniency since theyve had their warnings so to speak.

All that said, in this case, the punishment really doesnt fit the crime. It was a physical game and the fould should have been flagrant 1 but not flagrant 2 period.
 
All that said, in this case, the punishment really doesnt fit the crime. It was a physical game and the fould should have been flagrant 1 but not flagrant 2 period.
Click to expand...

Well...that's what it was, apperently. It was only to be a Flag 1. However, because it's Artest, and his past actions, Stu felt the need to bump it to a Flag 2.

I don't agree with that, for, what happened. If it was a worse situation, then, sure...but for an elbow...I just don't agree that past actions should be the reason to bump it up. If there is a legit reason or they wanted to get techy on a rule, okay...but...I just don't buy past actions as being a legit reason.
 
QueensFan said:
Look, I think the suspension is bogus, but "past actions" is at least part of a legit explanation. There needs to be more than just past actions, but come on this is nothing new - why do you think RonRon lost the whole season last year? Past actions - the NBA had just reached the end of their tether with him and wanted to send a strong message. The point is, there IS a cumulative effect, and guys with pasts SHOULD be treated with less leniency since theyve had their warnings so to speak.

All that said, in this case, the punishment really doesnt fit the crime. It was a physical game and the fould should have been flagrant 1 but not flagrant 2 period.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it was neither a flagrant 1 or a 2 but rather an intentional fist to the head (think Anthony Peeler) which is a different ruling altogether.
 
"Past actions" is bulldooty. If they don't want him in the league, they should just say so. If they're going to make comments like "past actions," they might as well just force him to retire. Every team in the league will waste no time in keying on Ron and doing whatever it takes to push him over the edge. That's not fair ... and it's not right.

I call major foul on Stu Jackson.
 
acisking said:
Unfortunately, it was neither a flagrant 1 or a 2 but rather an intentional fist to the head (think Anthony Peeler) which is a different ruling altogether.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? he hit manus shoulder first then it hit him in the head, and I have seen ron trhough forarms at peoples heads this is not an intentional anything to the head, I believe he was intentionally trying to shove him, but I do not think he was headhunting at all, not one replay I have seen looks as though he was!
 
IF Ron Artest had been headhunting, Manu Ginobili would still be trying to remember his name...
 
there's a link of an audio of artest's reaction to the suspension on kings.com if anyone missed it.
 
acisking said:
Unfortunately, it was neither a flagrant 1 or a 2 but rather an intentional fist to the head (think Anthony Peeler) which is a different ruling altogether.
Click to expand...
That is just wrong. It was a forearm that appeared to hit him in the shoulder first. I never saw Ron throw a "fist" at his head. And I've watched the stupid replay a bunch now.
 
They are talking on KHTK and apparently the league's stance is that "past actions" does affect the call. Which a lot of people don't think is fair.
 
The fist to the head is actually "fist or forearm", hence the Anthony Peeler reference from when he forearmed Garnett.
 
It's official, our team is being ****ed with.

I find that even harder to take than us losing the rest of the games.
 
uolj said:
The fist to the head is actually "fist or forearm", hence the Anthony Peeler reference from when he forearmed Garnett.
Click to expand...
ARGH why does everyone keep referring to Peeler? In that case there was a FIGHT which is way different than contact DURING the game, intentional or not.
 
Sirius said:
It's official, our team is being ****ed with.

I find that even harder to take than us losing the rest of the games.
Click to expand...

You're just noticing this? How long have you been a Kings fan, exactly?
 
LOL wow, past actions. The guy paid his dues for what he did! He made a mistake and served his time. Let it go NBA, stop living in the past. Give this guy a break for f***'s sake.

This was far from being as bad as the Peeler elbow.
 
kingkung said:
You're just noticing this? How long have you been a Kings fan, exactly?
Click to expand...

Yeah - I'm surprised they let us have 5 players on the floor sometimes...
 
'Past actions' sadly is a pretty legit excuse, doesn't seem right that you guys get punished for what he did with the Pacers, but I guess that's just part of the baggage
 
SoupIsGood said:
'Past actions' sadly is a pretty legit excuse,
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

Either he's officially forgiven or officially unforgiven. Which is it?

What was the 72-game suspension for, if not to balance the scales in the League's view? If he needed further punishment, he should've been suspended longer, or fined more. If the offense was unforgivable, he shouldn't be given the impression that he'd still be able to contribute in the League.

If the NBA sees fit to allow Artest to continue in the NBA, he should play under the same rules as everyone else.

And if he's not going to be under the same rules, they should have let him (and any potential Indiana trade partners) know outright and upfront, so he'd know not to keep trying, and the other teams would know not to pursue him.

Actually... I guess they just did... a little late for us, dontcha think?
~~
 
VF21 said:
"Past actions" is bulldooty. If they don't want him in the league, they should just say so. If they're going to make comments like "past actions," they might as well just force him to retire. Every team in the league will waste no time in keying on Ron and doing whatever it takes to push him over the edge. That's not fair ... and it's not right.

I call major foul on Stu Jackson.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The league is admitting to a double standard. They're basically saying that if Manu Ginobili (or Duncan, Parker, etc.) intentionally hits Artest in the face in the next game, they won't be suspended because they don't have Artest's history.

Like VF21 says, if you're going to brand a player with the scarlet letter, you might as well just throw him out of the league.
 
Alacron said:
I strongly disagree.

Either he's officially forgiven or officially unforgiven. Which is it?

What was the 72-game suspension for, if not to balance the scales in the League's view? If he needed further punishment, he should've been suspended longer, or fined more. If the offense was unforgivable, he shouldn't be given the impression that he'd still be able to contribute in the League.

If the NBA sees fit to allow Artest to continue in the NBA, he should play under the same rules as everyone else.

And if he's not going to be under the same rules, they should have let him (and any potential Indiana trade partners) know outright and upfront, so he'd know not to keep trying, and the other teams would know not to pursue him.

Actually... I guess they just did... a little late for us, dontcha think?
~~
Click to expand...


It's already been known, ever since the brawl suspension ruling. His past was quoted as part of the reasoning behind it.

As a Pacer fan, all of us knew, as Ron was returning to us this season, that he would be on a TIGHT leash. Some of the less optimistic were predicting he would get kicked out of the league.
 
"Past actions" is manure disguised as sirloin. The officials didn't find a big problem with it. The Spurs didn't find a big problem with it. But since IT'S RON ARTEST! Stu Jacksom just had to scratch that itch. You could only imagine how hard it was for him to hear how well Ron has been for Sacramento. Figures well he's done something now I'm justified.
 
SoupIsGood said:
It's already been known, ever since the brawl suspension ruling. His past was quoted as part of the reasoning behind it.

As a Pacer fan, all of us knew, as Ron was returning to us this season, that he would be on a TIGHT leash. Some of the less optimistic were predicting he would get kicked out of the league.
Click to expand...

Tight leash for behavioral issues, fine. To be expected for someone who's trashed a video camera and gone into the stands to attack spectators.

But who knew that a "tight leash" could include an in-game, non-flagrant foul incurring a suspension during the playoffs?
~~
 
Alacron said:
But who knew that a "tight leash" could include an in-game, non-flagrant foul incurring a suspension during the playoffs?
~~
Click to expand...

Er, when I thought of 'tight leash,' random whackiness like bopping someone on the head was one of the first things I thought of. Well, maybe not one of the first, but I always assumed it included any kind of 'Ron issue.'

It's a tough situation really. A few years back, it seems like I remember Ron getting suspended for stepping over the boundary line during a blowout. :rolleyes: (I think that was him) He's basically under a microscope at all times now, and if he didn't know that yet, then he defintely should now.
 
Basically, this has to be looked at as Rob being on "probation" with the league.

Its not about the Kings and "conspiracy", its about Ron and his past.
 
If they wanted to get him for "past actions" they should have done it during the regular season, not the playoffs where it's supposed to get rough.
 
KingKong said:
If they wanted to get him for "past actions" they should have done it during the regular season, not the playoffs where it's supposed to get rough.
Click to expand...

They aren't "out to get him" -- in the regular season I am not sure I saw him deliver a chuck to the thead. In fact I have been generally inmpressed with both Ron's on court composure as well as his relationship with the refs. FGar from being whistle happy with him, Ron has played about as clean of a rough game as you can, and doesn't even rack up many fouls.

Ron gave them this opportunity by taking a shot in a very prominent game, having already set the stage with the war of words earlier. Everybody was wacthing. Mike Bibby would not be suspended for it. Tim Duncan woould not be suspended for it. But Ron gave the league an excuse to do it. And that's a double standard. But its one that was easy to anticipate and that Ron damn well should have realized beforehand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozymandias
A few words on (a)the Jaden Hardy trade (b)the Kings multi-year draft outlook
Replies
3
Views
742
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
Ozymandias
If we just keep all our guys can we win the championship?
Replies
20
Views
1K
gunks
gunks
Tetsujin
  • Locked
[Game] Sacramento Kings (3) vs Golden State Warriors (6) (WCDS Game 2, 1-0) 4/14/2023 7:00pm Pacific 10:00pm Eastern (TNT)
42 43 44
Replies
1K
Views
62K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Can we get a quality player in the 2023 draft?
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
206Fan
2
bajaden
Bajaden's real 2024 Mock Draft: Part one
2 3
Replies
63
Views
7K
KingsFanSince85
KingsFanSince85
Back
Top