You have to ask yourself the question. How far are you willing to go? Will you go to the limits of the law and then beyond it. Okay, that’s just some paraphrasing from The Untouchables.
What Jason Kidd did tonight in helping the Mavericks to a win was legal. He isn’t cheating by doing that. He’s just also not NOT cheating by doing that.
What’s “that?”
I’ll show you, courtesy of Protect the Paint:
Man, somebody get Mike Woodson a xanax.
Have to say Woodson doesn't have a leg to stand on. He is on the court. Regardelss of wether Kidd makes contact with him that should be a technical. That he is on the court in Kidds line of sight/run when Kidd is 8 feet away makes it even worse and it happens all the time with coaches encroaching on to the court. Officials need to T them up as soon as they cross that line to get it sorted.
finzent,
I think (1) is right. Kidd had one foot out of bounds when he hit Woodson, so the correct call should have been out of bounds on Kidd. Just because a play is reviewed doesn't mean it's coming out correctly. The NFL has plenty of examples of that.
@bronn:
"Finzent, usually plays like you’re describing don’t involve dribbling out of bounds to throw a forearm into a by-stander."
That's factually true but I think it misses the point. First, please don't make it sound like Kidd did something terribly violent to Woodson. He didn't "throw an elbow". He touched him.
Then, Woodson is not a bystander on that play, he is the opposing coach committing a violation. If Woodson were a player and Kidd dribbled into him like he did, it would be Kidd's foul. But Woodson is not a player, and the rules treat him differently. Most importantly, they say "don't be on the court". Therefore, I think my analogy is way more fitting than the one you imply; Kidd realized a way to get a call and acted upon it. That acting upon it means doing something unusual that, had it been done to a player, would be judged differently doesn't make it wrong.
Look, I think there are to possible objections to that play. (1) It was the wrong call or (2) It wasn't the wrong call but it was somehow a dirty play. I think (1) is pretty obviously wrong, and the fact that the officials took their time to review the situation before making the call strongly suggests that it wasn't blatantly wrong. (2) I don't buy either because, as stated above, I don't see what aspect of the situation would make the play "dirty". Kidd pretty much forced the officials to make a call. He didn't hurt or attack anyone. He did nothing covertly. So what is it he did wrong, then?
Ridiculously nice move by Kidd. Hawks need some of that killer instinct.
Bronn, in plays like he's describing it doesn't matter what the person with the ball does actually. If you read the rule book, it clearly states the coach can't be on the floor (and rarely out of the coaches box for that matter) without the refs permission. In this case it was a non-unsportsmanlike penalty whether Kidd forced contact or not - all he did was force the refs to make the decision, again clearly stated in the rule book.
Smart play by Kidd. Bibby had just hit a big three to give the Hawks the lead and that tech helped kill their momentum. Dallas won going away in OT. Woodson probably beat his kids after that game.
Finzent, usually plays like you're describing don't involve dribbling out of bounds to throw a forearm into a by-stander.
There's another great angle for this replay where Woodson seems to get his feet back out of bounds, but Kidd dribbles into him anyway and then points directly at the official as if to say "Hey, what the hell?"
It's very questionable whether the contact was made in bounds, and Jason Kidd aims himself directly at Woodson from 8 feet away and, upon seeing Woodson attempting to get out of the way, he THROWS his arm into him to draw the foul.
This is somewhat analogous to Reggie Miller kicking his legs into the defender to draw a foul after jumping, which was also often an asshole move.
Agree. Smart play and, even if Woodson was outbounds when the contact happen, he was still affecting the play. The refs should have given him the "T" without Kidd drawing attention to the situation.
That's how he likes to hit his wife as well when she doesn't make him a chicken pot pie.
I don't get the implied criticism. In terms of fairness/unfairness this play is exactly analogous to a player noticing that his defender is out of position (like, his arms dangle in front of the offensive player on the perimeter) and then drawing the foul (like, getting in a shooting motion although normally you wouldn't shoot with the defender this close). That is not something anybody in their right mind would call "not NOT cheating".
So where is the difference? Kidd notices Woodson is "out of position" and draws the foul. He normally wouldn't rush to the space on the court Woodson occupied. But in my example, the player wouldn't shoot in that situation if he wasn't reasonably sure he could draw the foul.
Or am I missing something?
