※ [本文轉錄自 NBA 看板] 作者: gaga19900329 (GagaKnight) 看板: NBA 標題: [外電] Dwight Howard Plays, Philadelphia Seethes 時間: Wed Apr 29 17:34:39 2009 來源：http://tinyurl.com/2dvtnm Less than three minutes into the Sixers vs. Magic Game 5, Dwight Howard swung a hard right elbow that connected to the back of Sixer center Samuel Dalembert's head. (It was a solid shot. Dalembert put his hands to his head after the play, apparently to try to stop the ringing.) Dwight Howard在對七六人的第五戰中，用手肘做出揮擊Dalembert頭部的動作。(這是結結 實實的一擊。被肘擊後，Dalembert撫摸著頭，顯然想停止他強烈的疼痛。) Howard was called for a technical, but, in apparent defiance of the NBA rulebook, was not ejected. Howard被吹了一次技術犯規，但是，似乎忽視了NBA的規則，他沒有被驅逐出場。 A photograph could change the entire story. (Anybody else notice that the NBAE-supplied photos available through Getty Images never seem to capture controversial moments like this?) If somebody has captured the moment of impact, it will be tough for the League not to take some kind of action. 一張照片就可能改寫整個故事。如果有人拍下了，那麼整個聯盟可能就得較強硬的禁止這 種動作。 But what is the correct action when it certainly appears that Howard -- who essentially won the game for Orlando with 24 points and 24 rebounds -- ought to have watched almost all of this game from his locker? 但對基本上贏得了這場比賽的Howard(24分24籃板)，怎樣是正確的判決呢？ This is what the rulebook says: 規則是這麼寫的： k. A technical foul, unsportsmanlike act or flagrant foul must be called for a participant to be ejected. A player, coach or trainer may be ejected for: k. 因為一次技術犯規、不符合運動精神的動作或是惡意犯規，球員、教練或訓練員可以被 判出場的情況有： (1) An elbow foul which makes contact shoulder level or below 對肩部或以下的部位肘擊。 (2) Any unsportsmanlike conduct where a technical foul is assessed 當被判技術犯規時有任何不符合運動精神的動作。 (3) A flagrant foul where unnecessary and/or excessive contact occurs 不必要的惡意犯規，或是太激烈的肢體接觸。 EXCEPTION: Rule 12A--Section V--l(5) l. A player, coach or trainer must be ejected for: 一個球員，教練或訓練員必須被判出場的情況： (1) A punching foul 對球員或裁判揮拳 (2) A fighting foul 打架 (3) An elbow foul which makes contact above shoulder level 肘擊肩部以上的部位 I'll be honest. I empathize with the urge to want to keep players on the floor. And in this isolated case, you could argue this was dealt with well enough -- it's not like the situation escalated out of control in the aftermath. 我得誠實講，我同情並主張讓球員繼續留在場上。在這個個案裡，你可以說這樣的處理 已經足夠好了，這不像最後那些失控的火爆場面。 But what's with ignoring the rulebook? If the bigger priority is to give the referees discretion to handle these things as they see fit, then let's put it in writing that the referees have that discretion, rather than so clearly enumerating punishments and then ignoring them. 但忽略了規則所帶來的是怎麼樣的後果呢？如果給裁判自由判斷的權力來決定如何處理這 樣的情況是較好的，那我們就應該把他也寫進規則裡，而不是已經列出了明確的處罰，再 來忽略它而不去執行。 影片：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjYuOG1gMDw -- ▊ ● ████◣ ╭◢███◣ ◣ ◣ ╮ ╭◢█◣ ◢█◣╲╲ ▊╴ ╭██ ◥█═╯██ ◥█ █ █ ╰═════╯█ █ █ █╮ ▊ Π ║██◣ █ ██ █ █ █ ◢█◣ ◣█◣ █ █ █║ ㄟ─ ∥ ║████◤ ★ █████ █ █ █▄◤ █▌█ ◢█◤ █ █║ ㄟ╯ ∥ ║██◥█◣ ██ █ █ █ ◥█◤ ◥▌◤ █ █ █║ 20 █ ╰█◤═◥█══◥█══◤ ◥ ◥ ══BOSKG5MVP ███ ◥█◤╯ ／∕ --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.112.4.234 -- You will NEVER beat me, I'm The Deadman, and you try on me, I'll make you FAMOUS! -- Undertaker, CEO of DeadMan Inc. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 125.229.90.90