So all anybody seems to be able to talk about around the NBA today is the Elbow Heard Round the World. Discussions are taking any number of angles, from how long the apparently sardonically-named Metta World Peace will be suspended to how long James Harden will be out to whether the elbow was intentional or unintentional and how much worse the replay may have made it look. But in a basketball climate currently fixated on the means just as much as the ends when it comes to practices like tanking or flopping, it’s worth asking whether there’s a double standard applied to emotion in the NBA.
Intention is, ultimately, not something that can be determined by slow motion replay. We can attempt to intuit intention based on body language, but there’s simply no way to tell whether the-Artest-currently-known-as-World-Peace was trying to hurt Harden. After the game, World Peace said, “[I]t was unfortunate that James had to get hit with the unintentional elbow.” You can parse that any way you want, but it’s not going to get you closer to the truth of what happened.
It’s worth asking the question whether there is in fact any truth to get to when it comes to incidents like this. As it was when Kevin Love stepped on Luis Scola, the reprobation was quick in coming, but what’s more telling is the approbation layered onto the offending players directly before these incidents. Here’s video of the Love incident, including the play immediately preceding it:
Love fights tooth and nail for several offensive rebounds on the play preceding the incident before putting it in and the commentators (who are Rockets commentators, by the way) applaud him. “I’ll tell you: that’s the toughest customer in the league right there.” Thirty seconds later, though, watching the replay, their tone has changed dramatically: “Oh man! That is a dirty play.” “That’s dirty.”
Likewise, immediately before the elbow happens in the first video, Mike Breen’s professional excitement is palpable—it is, after all, his job to bring the game to life. “Artest DRIVES and finishes,” he says. “And the LAKER crowd FIRED up.” Quickly, though, his tone turns measured: “Oh no, let’s take a peek … oh, that’s disgraceful.”
Let’s be clear: I’m not calling out commentators for hypocrisy or any such thing. My desire is actually to tone down the moral aspect of this whole debate. The commentators are just reflecting the fundamental culture of competition, where emotion is prized, where a sort of unthinking state of being is praised as being “unconscious” or being “in the zone” when it comes to shooting, but vilified when it comes to “unintentional” elbows or stomps. This isn’t specific to basketball or even current sports—by some accounts, the Mesoamerican precursor to basketball involved human sacrifice and was used in place of open warfare for settling conflicts between factions. LeBron James is regularly chastised for thinking too much on the court at moments when he should just take over the ballgame, for making the right basketball play that’s the wrong one for winning the game.
Consider Michael Jordan’s shrug after hitting six threes in the first half against Portland in the 1992 NBA Finals. That shrug said, according to Marv Albert, “What can I do?” In a way, he was acknowledging the unintentionality of his play that night, that sense that he couldn’t have stopped hitting threes if he had tried. At some primal level, the intention behind Artest’s elbow and a particularly nasty, but legal, dunk is the same: to stoke the emotional fires higher in an effort to elevate play. One crosses the line into violence and injury while the other doesn’t, but this is maybe why asking about the elbow’s intentionality is the wrong question to ask. We demand that athletes walk a knife edge, praising them for playing with their hearts and not their heads and condemning them for letting their emotions get the better of them.
Was whatever drove Love to scrap and fight for those rebounds so different, deep down, from what boiled over into stepping on Scola? Is it even possible to extricate what makes Metta World Peace a tough, gritty player who will plow down the court for an emphatic dunk from what makes him a guy who will unintentionally clock a player as he celebrates? Both incidents deserve punishment, but if we can recognize that what is unacceptable can grow from the same root as what is glorified, we can better understand how inadequate intentionality is in describing action on the court, how one player playing “unconscious” can result in another one being knocked unconscious.

