How many games should Artest get on the flagrant foul vs Harden?

[BlueandGold]

Ok so I didn't personally watch the game.. been working all day (school work) and didn't have time to do anything until now but i was actually about to post a thread stating whether it was an intentional foul or not until i saw the replay of it on youtube.

It's still a little unclear on whether or not it was intentional because it did appear his anatomical range of motion was within the framework of his celebration but with super-slow replay and the proper close-up it does look a little sketchy on his part since his elbow did extend a little bit too far beyond his back, thus catching Harden.

Of course you could also argue that Artest couldn't really see harden because of the adrenaline of the spectacular dunk that he just finished but if you were a league official with that framework in mind how many game suspension should he get (if any) and why do you believe it should be x amount of games?

[EoJ]

I say 3 - 5

[NumberSix]

4 or 5 games.

[DuMa]

2 games for violent elbow to the head.
2 games because he has been a repeat offender in the past.

so he should really miss the first 3 games of the playoffs for the lakers.

[KB2009Champ]

3 games max and a heavy fine.

[qrich]

I'd generally say 2-5 but with Artest's past, expecting to see about 8-12.

[maybeshewill13]

A lot. This isn't getting 2-3.. it will be much more.

[jb220]

How many games should Harden get on the flagrant flop?

[BlueandGold]

2 games for violent elbow to the head.
2 games because he has been a repeat offender in the past.

so he should really miss the first 3 games of the playoffs for the lakers.

I was going to say 1 myself just because of the disputable nature of the foul's malicious intent or not (remember you have to prove malicious intent for there to either be a flagrant or a suspension) but seeing also the damage that might have been done and some other responses on here I was going to up it to 2 just to sound reasonable.

Minus the bottom part of your post that should be in line with exactly what i think a fair punitive action would look like. In regards to latter post itself I don't think that its fair to tack on a "repeat offender" clause to Artest's penalty because 1. the initial offense was an isolated one and 2. Artest has done a complete 180 since then and nothing of the sort has happened since.

A lot. This isn't getting 2-3.. it will be much more.

You do understand why i put "explain why" in the OP don't you?

[Mr. Jabbar]

all season tbh, including playoffs.

[maybeshewill13]

all season tbh, including playoffs.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. The NBA needs to make an example of this.

[bmulls]

Bynum got 5, but I think his was worse because it was "premeditated", where Artest's was in the heat of the moment.

But then Artest has a past history which must be taken into consideration.

So I think 5 games is fair.

[Haymaker]

Not less than Bynum for the Barea incident.

[BlueandGold]

all season tbh, including playoffs.

Wtf are you kidding me? For that? It looked much worse than what it was..

Bynum got 5, but I think his was worse because it was "premeditated", where Artest's was in the heat of the moment.

But then Artest has a past history which must be taken into consideration.

So I think 5 games is fair.

Yea thanks for bringing this in.. was trying to remember some type of precedent. If a player coming at another player only gets 4 or so game then something that was arguably unintentional should get much less imo, at least half of something that is 100% undeniably intentional so i believe 2 is fair.

[EnoughSaid]

Bynum got 5 games for elbowing a SMALLER JJ Barea while he was IN THE AIR. That looked 100% intentional. This is different, because you could say that maybe Artest wasn't trying to hit him.

He at least would probably get one game, if not 2 or 3.