Why Draymond Green deserved to be suspended for Game 4
We'll never know whether Draymond Green meant to kick Steven Adams in the junk.
We can speculate and break down the film. We can freeze-frame and yell, "ENHANCE!" at our computers like we're in an episode of CSI. But it's all for naught. The only person who knows Green's intentions in that moment is Green.
And it shouldn't matter one iota. What Green did on Sunday night was reckless, and he deserved to be suspended for it.
The following was released by the NBA: pic.twitter.com/Zio6qZqzPP
— Warriors PR (@WarriorsPR) May 23, 2016
If I climb into my vehicle and swerve across every lane on the freeway while crashing through vehicles, I'm going to get pulled over, arrested and thrown in jail. It doesn't matter whether I intended to hurt anyone or not. I'm endangering people with my actions; that's the long and the short of it.
Granted, no one's life was at stake in Game 3, but the same reasoning stands. By not suspending Green, the NBA is essentially saying that as long as you leave some plausible deniability in your actions, you can flail away:
Someone gets in your way? That's their fault. They should have given you room to flop and try to fool the officials. You have the right to throw your limbs wherever you want, as long as it's in the course of exaggerating content.
Except, no, that's not what the NBA has said -- because just 24 hours earlier, the league suspended Cleveland Cavaliers reserve Dahntay Jones for a similar altercation.
Oh, sorry; Jones used his arm, while Green used his leg. And this was a rebounding situation, not a shot, so it's completely different. Players are allowed to keep kicking out, despite the fact that such a motion from a shooter is explicitly against the rules. Right.
So when Russell Westbrook does something like this, trying to draw contact from Green after launching a jumper from four feet in front of the Warriors forward:
He apparently has the leeway to do so. As long as it's not malicious, it's a flagrant-two and a fine at worst -- and not the suspension which Green earned. (Quick aside: Westbrook's lucky there wasn't more contact on this play, or else we might be talking about whether the Thunder point guard deserves a suspension. Let that be another lesson: If you're going to flail, do it from at least a yard away).
We can go back even further than these playoffs, if you'd like, to the David Stern administration. Remember the 2007 postseason? The Phoenix Suns lost Amar'e Stoudemire and Boris Diaw to suspension in the Western Conference semifinalsfinals when those two stepped just off the bench after Suns point guard Steve Nash was hip-checked into the scorer's table. That year, there was no leniency. A rule was broken, and Phoenix paid the price.
If you believe the NBA exaggerated there, then perhaps you'll see Monday's lack of suspension as growth in the league. It's a compelling point; the NBA is an entertainment product, and as long as everyone is safe, it behooves the league to make sure its stars are out there.
But when NBA players complain about officiating, they harp on the same point: They just want consistency. Between historical precedent and the Jones suspension, being consistent meant suspending Green.
Instead, the NBA went a different direction. The playoffs will be better for the decision, but the questions about the league and its officiating are about to reach a crescendo.
