Is intentionally hurting Curry the only way to stop him?

This week there has been talk on a few of the ESPN radio shows about whether or not intentionally hurting a player is acceptable to win.

This became a topic of conversation after Golden State's Steph Curry went down in game one after an ankle injury against the Houston Rockets. The media has discussed over the past few days whether or not this is the only way to stop Curry from scoring.

Now before you question ethics, they're not talking about seriously injuring another player (hopefully). They've only contemplated whether or not it's okay to simply stick your foot out for another player to land on it and roll an ankle.

Basketball enthusiasts call it "being Jalen Rosed" since Jalen Rose did it to Kobe Bryant in game 2 of the 2000 NBA Finals.

(1:30 mark)

There have been different takes from the media and the overall consensus is somewhat unclear. If a guy has a weak spot or weakness, do you attack it?

It happens in sports more than you think, especially in the NFL with football being more physical in nature.

I don't think it's okay to intentionally hurt another player just because you cannot stop that person from scoring. However, I do not have a problem with a hard foul or being physical with smaller players.

I have always wondered why opponents don't deny Curry the ball by getting more physical with him before he catches the ball. That is obviously easier said than done but it's something that could at least slow him down.

I've also wondered why opponents don't put him on his butt when he goes through the lane. Big men should be overly physical with him when he cuts through the lane and when he goes in for layups.

It's more of an old school basketball approach but it's a better option than trying to injure a player and possibly ruin a career.

See Also: