Friday, February 25, 2005
Free John Chaney!
First read this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1999665
Now get ready to totally disagree with me on what I'm about to say...
I don't get it. I honestly do not think this is a situation that warrants any suspensions, much less a suspension for the rest of the regular season. Nothing unusual or immoral happened here, only an unfortunate accident. Since Chaney was not wrong in his actions, he should not be punished because of their coincidental consequences.
First of all, I'd like to praise John Chaney for setting a fine example of what it means to take responsibility. Even though I disagree with him, Chaney felt his actions were "reprehensible" so he held himself to the standards he set for the program and he suspended himself for the next game. I can't recall anybody ever doing that in any sport. Maybe he was hoping to stem the tide of critical backlash and lessen the need for stricter team- or conference-mandated punishments. Then again, maybe he's just a stand-up guy who felt he made a bad mistake and wanted to take the heat for it. Since he's gone so far as to offer apologies to everyone directly and indirectly involved as well as pay the injured players' medical bills, I suspect it's the latter.
Seriously, though, what about this situation is so reprehensible? How is sending in a player to intentionally foul really any different than when bigs lay down hard fouls on point guards dribble-driving in the lane? Those guys intentionally foul hard, not just to prevent a three-point play, but to (you guessed it) send a message. You cannot watch a college or pro basketball game without seeing examples of this and hearing the commentators praise them for it. That's just part of the game of basketball, an unwritten rule that says you foul a guy hard so next time he doesn't feel as comfortable driving to the rim and maybe settles for a jumpshot. Since Chaney felt he needed to stop what he saw as illegal screens by St. Joseph's, why are his instructions to "send a message" any different?
The only reason they are being perceived to be any different is the simple fact that a kid got hurt. If John Bryant didn't have a broken arm right now, no one would even be batting an eyelash much less handing out suspensions. So why does that change things to this extent? Chaney didn't tell Ingram "Hey get out there and hurt somebody. Go break an arm." All he did was tell him to "send a message," the presumed message being "Stop using illegal screens." Basketball is a full-contact sport. Like it or not, as long as guys foul each other, guys are going to get hurt. Just because the act to foul was intentional, it doesn't mean the resulting injury was intended nor should the punishment be based upon that. Did Bruce Bowen get suspended for running into Vince Carter last season and ending his season? Of course not. Would Popovich draw fire if he had told Bowen to simply foul him? I don't think so. Why not? Because it was all still very well within the confines of the game of basketball. If your opponent is playing physical and not getting penalized for it, you have two choices: you can either play it straight and hope for help from the refs or you can lace up your boots and go to war like your opponent is. I'm not gonna say one way is right and one way is wrong, but I will say that teams that answer with physicality of their own are often the teams that earn respect, praise, and victories. The teams that don't are often labeled soft and tend to find themselves with more L's than W's. If teams are playing too rough or even dirty, it's up the referees to clean it up. The way I see it, all John Chaney did was answer the call. He stepped up the way basketball players are taught to do. The injury to Bryant is a sad, painful accident. Injuries can and do happen at any time, be it with little contact, hard contact, or no contact. This is a simple case of "don't hate the player, hate the game."
I will admit, I have not seen any footage of the game or the incident in question. Maybe I shouldn't have written anything until I did see it. However, even if the video shows me a brutal, unecessarily hard foul on Bryant, I still don't see how you blame John Chaney. If you start suspending coaches everytime they say "send a message," assistant coaches are going to be seeing a lot more action from the first chair. If the foul was totally and irresponsibly excessive, punish the player. If it was just your average hard foul, punish no one. Under none of the circumstances currently reported, should Temple be punishing John Chaney.
|
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=1999665
Now get ready to totally disagree with me on what I'm about to say...
I don't get it. I honestly do not think this is a situation that warrants any suspensions, much less a suspension for the rest of the regular season. Nothing unusual or immoral happened here, only an unfortunate accident. Since Chaney was not wrong in his actions, he should not be punished because of their coincidental consequences.
First of all, I'd like to praise John Chaney for setting a fine example of what it means to take responsibility. Even though I disagree with him, Chaney felt his actions were "reprehensible" so he held himself to the standards he set for the program and he suspended himself for the next game. I can't recall anybody ever doing that in any sport. Maybe he was hoping to stem the tide of critical backlash and lessen the need for stricter team- or conference-mandated punishments. Then again, maybe he's just a stand-up guy who felt he made a bad mistake and wanted to take the heat for it. Since he's gone so far as to offer apologies to everyone directly and indirectly involved as well as pay the injured players' medical bills, I suspect it's the latter.
Seriously, though, what about this situation is so reprehensible? How is sending in a player to intentionally foul really any different than when bigs lay down hard fouls on point guards dribble-driving in the lane? Those guys intentionally foul hard, not just to prevent a three-point play, but to (you guessed it) send a message. You cannot watch a college or pro basketball game without seeing examples of this and hearing the commentators praise them for it. That's just part of the game of basketball, an unwritten rule that says you foul a guy hard so next time he doesn't feel as comfortable driving to the rim and maybe settles for a jumpshot. Since Chaney felt he needed to stop what he saw as illegal screens by St. Joseph's, why are his instructions to "send a message" any different?
The only reason they are being perceived to be any different is the simple fact that a kid got hurt. If John Bryant didn't have a broken arm right now, no one would even be batting an eyelash much less handing out suspensions. So why does that change things to this extent? Chaney didn't tell Ingram "Hey get out there and hurt somebody. Go break an arm." All he did was tell him to "send a message," the presumed message being "Stop using illegal screens." Basketball is a full-contact sport. Like it or not, as long as guys foul each other, guys are going to get hurt. Just because the act to foul was intentional, it doesn't mean the resulting injury was intended nor should the punishment be based upon that. Did Bruce Bowen get suspended for running into Vince Carter last season and ending his season? Of course not. Would Popovich draw fire if he had told Bowen to simply foul him? I don't think so. Why not? Because it was all still very well within the confines of the game of basketball. If your opponent is playing physical and not getting penalized for it, you have two choices: you can either play it straight and hope for help from the refs or you can lace up your boots and go to war like your opponent is. I'm not gonna say one way is right and one way is wrong, but I will say that teams that answer with physicality of their own are often the teams that earn respect, praise, and victories. The teams that don't are often labeled soft and tend to find themselves with more L's than W's. If teams are playing too rough or even dirty, it's up the referees to clean it up. The way I see it, all John Chaney did was answer the call. He stepped up the way basketball players are taught to do. The injury to Bryant is a sad, painful accident. Injuries can and do happen at any time, be it with little contact, hard contact, or no contact. This is a simple case of "don't hate the player, hate the game."
I will admit, I have not seen any footage of the game or the incident in question. Maybe I shouldn't have written anything until I did see it. However, even if the video shows me a brutal, unecessarily hard foul on Bryant, I still don't see how you blame John Chaney. If you start suspending coaches everytime they say "send a message," assistant coaches are going to be seeing a lot more action from the first chair. If the foul was totally and irresponsibly excessive, punish the player. If it was just your average hard foul, punish no one. Under none of the circumstances currently reported, should Temple be punishing John Chaney.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 2:17 PM 
