If you only judged the two plays on the severity of the impact and damage potential, ignoring the wording of the actual rule, you'd probably deem Howard's the more egregious. But when the letter of the law comes into play especially after the NBA specifically cited it in explaining the Horford ruling it's impossible to understand how Howard avoided Horford's fate.
Here's the explanation for Horford's ejection (via the NBA Official Twitter account):
Explanation (1/3): 34.3 seconds left/Q2: Horford threw an unnecessary and excessive forearm/elbow to Dellavedova, making contact..... NBA Official (@NBAOfficial)
Explanation (2/3): 34.3 seconds left/Q2: ... Above the shoulders, therefore a Flagrant 2 foul was called on Horford... NBA Official (@NBAOfficial)
The first element of the offense is an "unnecessary and excessive forearm/elbow." Howard elbowed Bogut in a manner that, measured against Horford's play, was at least as unnecessary and excessive.
The second element is "above the shoulders." It would appear Bogut's face is above his shoulders.
That's it. Those were the grounds the league used to explain Horford's ejection. Apparently, that same justification didn't apply to the play involving Howard.
There's something to be said for allowing referees to use their discretion to avoid deciding playoff games by ejecting important players.
But if the league is going to cite specific language as the basis for being inflexible and then completely disregard that same language a day later, well, that's not going to make anybody happy.
If anything, Howard's play looked more like the one that got J.R. Smith ejected and suspended earlier this postseason.相关的主题文章：


http://sumi.powerbean.jp/bbs/man.cgi

http://www.dailyqr.com/blog_entry.php?user=1463609&blogentry_id=30556468

http://www.wpf.co.jp/home/_cgi/mchat1/mchat.cgi

http://www.robynramirez.com/Photos/picture.php?/8/list/25,19,6,7,16,2,8,14,3,17,20,13,1,22,10&comments_order=DESC#comments

http://www.umin.ac.jp/faq/hp