Babbling: Fowl play? Temple's Chaney's wings clipped
By Justin Sharaf, Senior Sports Consultant
Please tell me if I'm missing something with this whole controversy involving Temple University basketball coach John Chaney. As far as I can decipher, the 72 year-old Chaney was upset during the Owls' game against Atlantic-10 rival St. Joseph's University because the referees were not calling enough fouls, especially when St. Joe's set illegal picks. So, what did Chaney do? He put in senior Nehemia Ingram, a 6'8" 250-pound physical player with eight points and 16 fouls on the season, to send a message to both St. Joe's and the referees. Ingram did his job, committing hard foul after hard foul until fouling out after four minutes of play. Does this story sound accurate?

According to everyone involved, Ingram did nothing wrong. He will not be reprimanded, suspended or counseled for his anger. Chaney, however, first suspended himself for one game, then was suspended by Temple for the rest of the regular season (three more games), and finally suspended himself for the entire A-10 conference tournament.

Why were the suspensions strung along one-by-one? Because only after the first suspension did Chaney and Temple officials find out that one of the victims of an Ingram foul, John Bryant, had suffered a broken arm. Call me cynical, call me insensitive, call me late for dinner, but I may be one of the few people who thinks everyone is overreacting.

People are demanding that Chaney retire immediately or that Temple fire him. People are asking Bryant to file criminal charges against Chaney, Ingram and the University. People need to sit down, stop yelling, stop demanding and think about what really happened. Sure, hard fouls are technically illegal in basketball, but there's a reason they are called "hard fouls," because rules exist during the game that deal with hard fouls. An intentional foul or a technical foul should have been called, and Ingram should have been thrown out of the game. If Bryant had not broken his arm, we would have heard the end of this situation after the first suspension.

Chaney's one-game suspension seems more than harsh enough. Ingram, additionally, deserves a one-game suspension. However, these punishments should not be given out because the act itself was so wrong or illegal. The punishments should be given out in order to deter future incidents like this one.

In hockey, a "goon" like Ingram is called an enforcer. Players like Marty McSorley, Tie Domi, Jody Shelley and PJ Stock have made careers of playing like a "goon"-­ skating for no reason other than to check opposing players as hard as possible. They are rarely suspended, and often applauded, for fighting and inflicting injury. Every team wants a player like this, someone who will protect his team's superstar at any cost.

New England Patriots safety Rodney Harrison does not apologize for being one of the most heavily fined players in NFL history. Why? Because he earns millions for being one of the hardest hitting players in the league-a player feared by opposing receivers. It's Harrison's job to hit people as hard as he can. Sure he could be nicer and more gentle and commit "legal" hits, but the illegal hits are part of the game as well.

Chaney's actions were probably wrong, or at least against the spirit of the game. But because Bryant was injured more seriously than originally thought does not necessarily mean Chaney should be suspended for a longer period of time. Hard fouls are part of every game, of every sport. If you want to blame someone, blame the referees for letting Ingram's play get out of control.

Déja vu in Boston

Danny Ainge's recent acquisition of Antoine Walker from the Hawks is very strange, but I like it. Walker is an exciting, talented, energetic, veteran player who commands respect from teammates. The current Celtics are a young team in need of veteran guidance and leadership. People close to the Celtics claimed that while the team finally had the talent to compete with the best teams in the East, the Celtics were still held back by Paul Pierce's inability to lead. Pierce is a great player, one of the best in the league, but he is not vocal, and certainly not a leader. With Walker back, the attention and blame will be deflected away from Pierce, while the credit will most likely remain his.

When I first heard rumors that Gary Payton would be waived by the Hawks and could potentially re-sign with the Celtics, I was excited. I thought it was a coup for the Celtics to trade Tom Gugliotta and Michael Stewart for Walker. But now, after seeing the two box scores from this week's Walker-aided victories over the Jazz and Suns, I can't help but think that the development of Delonte West would be stunted by a Payton return.

West was 14-22 from the field in two games post-Payton, including 5-9 from three point range. He looked very confident with the ball (or so my dad said) and did not make any noticeable rookie mistakes. The Celtics appear to be able to win right now with West and backup Marcus Banks running the show, so why even consider bringing Payton back?

The addition of Walker opens up so many more opportunities for Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis. Both are primarily one-on-one players who create their own shots off the dribble. With Walker roaming around both the perimeter and the post and the outside shooting upgrade from Payton to West, opposing teams will be much more reluctant to send double teams on Pierce and Davis. The offensive potential is unlimited.

The Celtics were a very good, young, offensive team on the playoff bubble before this trade. Now, they are Eastern Conference contenders. But more importantly, they are in a position to develop their young talent that would otherwise be buried behind veterans. Like I've said before, give me a team of West, Pierce, Davis, Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Raef LaFrenz and Mark Blount for the next five years, and I will give you a satisfied Celtics fan. Add Antoine Walker to that mix, and I will give you a giddy Celtics fan expecting greatness.

Issue 19, Submitted 2005-03-01 23:11:58