After today's game 3 between the Cavs and Hawks and the incident with Delly and Horford, the commentary was split between Delly making a dirty play and Delly showing hustle to win back the ball.
Especially in light of the injury to Korver, if it was just a one of Delly diving into someone's legs you'd not even think twice but the fact that two similar incidents have happened twice in two games show that hes playing dirty and risking injury to the other players involved to gain or retain possession.
Firstly to me the Korver incident and the Horford incident were significantly different.
Korver and Delly both dived in after the ball, Delly seemed to be a bit quicker and rolled his body to shield the ball from Korver, no malice intended and as far as I could see it was a play for the ball which he got his hands on first, Korver stepped in with his body as opposed to diving on the ball like Delly did, the contact of which resulted in the injury to Korver's ankle.
The second incident today with Horford was between two players grappling to win the ball, Delly has lost his balance moving to backwards and across a little and as such has lost his feet and fallen back and towards Horford. Again no malice intended on the initial play. We see it all the time where players grapple. Even look at the K Love shoulder dislocation, with Olynyk there was a clear secondary downwards movement whilst hold K Love's arm in a locked position. Now I'm not saying Onlynyk's aim was to pop Love's should out but there is no arguing there was a secondary movement and a deliberate downwards pulling action on his arm and shoulder, in the Horford Delly incident there didn't appear to be any change of motion or any secondary movements.
The resulting ejection in Horford in my book was fully justified as both unnecessary AND excessive with Horford making a deliberate act to come down on top of Delly with an outstretched elbow, the Delly tech on the other hand was a bit confusing.
In both plays Delly never appears to deliberately change course or attempt to make additional unnecessary contact with his opposition player that I could see. (the Taj Gibson leg lock incident v Chicago is a different story)
One thing you see in the AFL tribunal system are factors that are taken into account such as did the player change course, did he leave his feet, where was the player looking before the contact was made etc etc.
To me it looked like a lot of hustle from the small man putting his body on the line to win his team the ball.
Interested in others views.
Especially in light of the injury to Korver, if it was just a one of Delly diving into someone's legs you'd not even think twice but the fact that two similar incidents have happened twice in two games show that hes playing dirty and risking injury to the other players involved to gain or retain possession.
Firstly to me the Korver incident and the Horford incident were significantly different.
Korver and Delly both dived in after the ball, Delly seemed to be a bit quicker and rolled his body to shield the ball from Korver, no malice intended and as far as I could see it was a play for the ball which he got his hands on first, Korver stepped in with his body as opposed to diving on the ball like Delly did, the contact of which resulted in the injury to Korver's ankle.
The second incident today with Horford was between two players grappling to win the ball, Delly has lost his balance moving to backwards and across a little and as such has lost his feet and fallen back and towards Horford. Again no malice intended on the initial play. We see it all the time where players grapple. Even look at the K Love shoulder dislocation, with Olynyk there was a clear secondary downwards movement whilst hold K Love's arm in a locked position. Now I'm not saying Onlynyk's aim was to pop Love's should out but there is no arguing there was a secondary movement and a deliberate downwards pulling action on his arm and shoulder, in the Horford Delly incident there didn't appear to be any change of motion or any secondary movements.
The resulting ejection in Horford in my book was fully justified as both unnecessary AND excessive with Horford making a deliberate act to come down on top of Delly with an outstretched elbow, the Delly tech on the other hand was a bit confusing.
In both plays Delly never appears to deliberately change course or attempt to make additional unnecessary contact with his opposition player that I could see. (the Taj Gibson leg lock incident v Chicago is a different story)
One thing you see in the AFL tribunal system are factors that are taken into account such as did the player change course, did he leave his feet, where was the player looking before the contact was made etc etc.
To me it looked like a lot of hustle from the small man putting his body on the line to win his team the ball.
Interested in others views.
Last edited:
