PDA

View Full Version : Suspension of Davis



owl
01-19-2006, 07:48 AM
Ok, once again we have a player entering the stands. Stern supposedly
ensured no one would enter the stands again with the Ron year long
suspension. How many games do you think he will get?
I say 5 games.

DisplacedKnick
01-19-2006, 08:08 AM
I'm hoping he gets 5 and that's what I voted but I kind of think he'll get 10. I will have a hard time believing he'll get more than Ben Wallace did last season but I look for it to happen.

We'll know soon enough because we "play" Detroit tonight (I'm not canceling any plans to watch that one).

hoopsforlife
01-19-2006, 08:41 AM
You don't have a 0 games option. This is the Knicks season we are talking about here. Not the Pacers..

fwpacerfan
01-19-2006, 09:19 AM
I voted rest of the season but I base that on the fact that Stern said he won't allow this to happen in the wake of 11/19.

Of course I know he's a lying scumbag who hates the Pacers and especially Artest so I if I had to bet I would say 1-5 games.

able
01-19-2006, 09:24 AM
The outcome of an event does not change the event itself.
(by which I mean that the fact that it did not turn into a brawl had nothing to do with the actions of AD)

Stern stated loud and clearly "no player shall go in the stands"

AD went into the stands, not because he was personally "attacked" or had something thrown at him, but because he was paying more attention to his wife then the game, therefore this utterly selfish action should result in the same suspension Ron Artest got.

Now of course it wont, and it being NY, my guess is a 20 K fine and a "stern" warning.

DisplacedKnick
01-19-2006, 09:32 AM
AD went into the stands, not because he was personally "attacked" or had something thrown at him, but because he was paying more attention to his wife then the game, therefore this utterly selfish action should result in the same suspension Ron Artest got.


Riiight - a guy going into the stands because some drunk idiot grabbed his wife and behaving in a completely nonviolent manner is equivalent to a guy going into the stands because some drunk idiot threw something at him - and then violently assaulting the wrong person.

I like you able but you should enact a self-imposed moratorium on commenting on anything to do with Artest because you come off sounding much less intelligent than you are.

Frex - you consider being worried about your wife to be selfish while reacting to a cup flying out of the stands and running up to grab a guy who didn't even do it to be equivalent to saving the world from hunger.

If AD was selfish he'd have said the heck with it and let his wife be gang-raped because what he did will certainly cost him big bucks - IMO over a million dollars for a 10-game suspension. Sure sounds selfish to me. :rolleyes:

Somehow you think that caring about your wife is wrong.

owl
01-19-2006, 09:33 AM
If Stern was consistent the suspension would be 20-30 games, and the only reason it would not be longer is because Tony never grabbed anyone and does not have a history(see RA). However, with Stern I would not be surprised to see no suspension at all. It could have turned very ugly, very quickly.


owl

DisplacedKnick
01-19-2006, 09:40 AM
If Stern was consistent the suspension would be 20-30 games, and the only reason it would not be longer is because Tony never grabbed anyone and does not have a history(see RA). However, with Stern I would not be surprised to see no suspension at all. It could have turned very ugly, very quickly.


owl

Actually, if Stern was consistent it would be 5. Last year Anthony Johnson went into the stands in a non-violent manner and that's what he got. AD never threw a punch and AFAIK never even directly threatened anyone - he went up there to see if his wife was OK.

So 5 would be fair though I expect 10 to send a message.

hoopburners
01-19-2006, 09:45 AM
Somehow you think that caring about your wife is wrong.

It's not wrong to care about your wife. And it's very noble for him to get there to protect her. But he still violated a simple rule of not going into the stands. And he deserves the punishment of suspension. There's no excemption in the rule that says you will not be suspended or fined when you walk into the stands because you saw your wife being heckled.

able
01-19-2006, 09:52 AM
DK, please read what I wrote, it has nothing to do with why and how.

1: yes he was less violent, but as I also said, the outcome bares no influence on the action
2: How come he got what happened to his wife (which now turns in to a gangbang attempt in the middle of the stands in United Center? court side no less ???) instead of paying attention to the game?
How many people notice their wife when playing professional sports and get what's happening as well? Or was he taunted?
3: As far as I am concerned I (had I known what was going on) had done the same, most likely, but accepted the remainder of the season as a penalty and just whacked the idiot who did whatever he did for good measurement.

And finally tell me who is more "righteous" in "self-defense" he who get's physically attacked or he who get's hackled, because I find it very very very hard to believe that something was going on that bystanders and security could not have solved.

owl
01-19-2006, 10:01 AM
Actually, if Stern was consistent it would be 5. Last year Anthony Johnson went into the stands in a non-violent manner and that's what he got. AD never threw a punch and AFAIK never even directly threatened anyone - he went up there to see if his wife was OK.

So 5 would be fair though I expect 10 to send a message.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

I would disagree with that. Johnson went in as a possible peace maker and
accessory to actions of one Ron Artest. In this case Antonio is the primary
person involved with the action. He initiated the action.
So with that in mind I still believe 20 games would be consistent.
If Stern wants to keep players out of the stands then 5 games is not
a deterent. Regardless of the circumstances.


owl

Slick Pinkham
01-19-2006, 10:05 AM
5 games sounds about right.

Herr Stern won't hammer that hard on a NY team.

(new avatar!)

owl
01-19-2006, 10:10 AM
That is a great avatar Tom. I think 2 toilets would have been more appropriate however.


owl

TheLemonSong
01-19-2006, 10:10 AM
I voted for 11-20..I think he'll initially be given a 20 game suspension and he'll appeal and get 15 (like Jermaine)...let's not forget that AD is the president of the players union!!!

Doug
01-19-2006, 10:15 AM
I voted "rest of the season". I think Stern is serious about "no player shall go in the stands NO MATTER WHAT".

But I think 10 games would be fair.

While this one didn't escalate into a riot, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where it does. All it takes is one idiot to swing at him, or push him, or throw something.

So, if he is suspended the rest of the season, is Kendra going to be proud of her "knight in shining armor" coming to her rescue or pissed at him for losing all that money? :-)

Frank Slade
01-19-2006, 10:51 AM
Going by AD's good standing. President of the Player's League, and the non violent way he entered and exited the stands I would be surprised if it was anything over 5 or 6 games...

And like some have said ...I would without question do the exact same thing, knowing full well that there will be a consequence...
(from what I heard this morning the guy was drunk , and he did allegedly touch her in some form...)

Sometimes the right thing to do in life is not always viewed as right based on the law of the land... that does not necessarily make it wrong.... and vice versa...

You have to have rules in place to protect everyone, and to be fair you have to apply those to everyone ...I would hope though Stern would be able to realize the circumstances and apply that when handing down the suspension....

ChicagoJ
01-19-2006, 11:05 AM
Ron didn't get 73 games based on his actions that night alone.

Heck, many of us thought SJax should've been given a longer suspension than Artest.

Aside, don't you realize yet that Stern did the Pacers a favor by not letting this guy back onto the team last season. Everybody needed an offseason to calm down and try to rebuild the team's chemistry - oh wait, that didn't turn out too well, did it? Can you imagine what would've happened to this team if he had been allowed back even earlier? :shudder: /Aside

AD has virtually no priors. And he's a smart enough guy that he'll probably take whatever punishment the league deems necessary for him to do what he needed to protect his wife.

So I don't really care what the punishment is. It seems to me that AD took a calculated risk of punishment and he obviously still handled himself in a way that the situation did not escalate. The same can't be said for Ron and his teammates.

Hicks
01-19-2006, 11:11 AM
Results of the action always play a big role in the consequences. Driving drunk and getting caught is a lot better than driving drunk and getting in a car wreck that hurts/kills someone. Either way, all you did was drive while intoxicated. Good luck on getting similar sentences.

Fool
01-19-2006, 11:22 AM
I voted 6-10. I think thats harsh compared to what actually happened, but I think it adequately holds up the "players just can't go into the stands" company line.

fwpacerfan
01-19-2006, 11:27 AM
Ron didn't get 73 games based on his actions that night alone.

Heck, many of us thought SJax should've been given a longer suspension than Artest.

Aside, don't you realize yet that Stern did the Pacers a favor by not letting this guy back onto the team last season. Everybody needed an offseason to calm down and try to rebuild the team's chemistry - oh wait, that didn't turn out too well, did it? Can you imagine what would've happened to this team if he had been allowed back even earlier? :shudder: /Aside

AD has virtually no priors. And he's a smart enough guy that he'll probably take whatever punishment the league deems necessary for him to do what he needed to protect his wife.

So I don't really care what the punishment is. It seems to me that AD took a calculated risk of punishment and he obviously still handled himself in a way that the situation did not escalate. The same can't be said for Ron and his teammates.


I agree that Stern's hatred of Artest and the colors Blue and Gold were obvious factors in last season's debacle.:devil:

To take this to an extreme - should a man who kills another man and has 2 reckless driving tickets get life in prison while a man who kills a man but has no prior offenses only gets 15 years? The crime is the same - they both killed a man. The fact one guy has a prior (unrelated to the incident) record should not factor in. The last I checked neither Artest or AD have ever went into the stands before their incidents. The crime (going into the stands) is the same. One guy was attacked (with a cup of beer) while the other was concerned that his family was in danger. Both can be justified, but Stern said last year referring to the brawl:


"We have to make the point that there are boundaries in our games, one of our boundaries, that have always been immutable, is the boundary that separate the fans from the court. Players cannot lose control and move into the stands." Followed by:


"To watch the out-of-control fans in the stands was disgusting, but it doesn't excuse our players going into the stands," Stern said, promising a wide-ranging review that will encompass everything from security procedures to alcohol sales at arenas.

I said it last year and I'll say it again - the Artest incident won't be the last time it happens because the NBA didn't address the real issue - the fans. The fans are allowed to do anything they want and there isn't enough security. That still seems to be the case.

20 games would be fair imho. He has to do something or the next time someone is heckling a player too much that player can go after him and say afterwards - I thought he was going to hurt my family.

Hicks
01-19-2006, 11:28 AM
I voted 1-5, btw.

Chauncey
01-19-2006, 11:47 AM
You're also dealing with one of the absolutely "best" people in the NBA. Antonio Davis is an extremely respected person in the NBA, by players and management.

He'll get 5 or 10 games because he initiated a risk that the NBA can't afford to take. However, Hicks' point regarding drunk driving is absolutely excellent and really hits home. Thats why you wont see more than 5-10 games.

5-10 games because he put himself in jeopardy and added to a situation that could have turned much worse. No more than that due to the extenuating circumstances and the *way* he went into the stands. He didn't go rushing in with rage in his eyes, he simply climbed over the scorers table and went up to his wife to see what was going on.

indygeezer
01-19-2006, 11:53 AM
You're also dealing with one of the absolutely "best" people in the NBA. Antonio Davis is an extremely respected person in the NBA, by players and management.

He'll get 5 or 10 games because he initiated a risk that the NBA can't afford to take. However, Hicks' point regarding drunk driving is absolutely excellent and really hits home. Thats why you wont see more than 5-10 games.

5-10 games because he put himself in jeopardy and added to a situation that could have turned much worse. No more than that due to the extenuating circumstances and the *way* he went into the stands. He didn't go rushing in with rage in his eyes, he simply climbed over the scorers table and went up to his wife to see what was going on.



Hmm...come to think of it, he plays for the Knicks too.:devil:

Jermaniac
01-19-2006, 12:17 PM
No more then 5 games. I wouldnt even give him 5.

Roy Munson
01-19-2006, 12:41 PM
AD went into the crowd to intimidate the guy who was in a beef with Mrs. D. If AD really wanted to protect his wife he would tell her to grow up and quit getting into arguments in NBA arenas. This wasn't her first...probably won't be her last.

Davis could have set off a riot. Security can handle a situation like last night...in fact they did, they escorted AD back onto the floor. AD's foray into the stands was unprovoked, and merits at least a 10 game suspension because of the precedent set last year, along with the dangerous precedent that would be set by excusing what he did just because "he was protecting his family".

He wasn't "protecting his family". His wife is a loudmouth aggressive lady who needs some counseling, and maybe she should be banned from NBA arenas for the rest of the season.

efx
01-19-2006, 12:50 PM
You don't have a 0 games option. This is the Knicks season we are talking about here. Not the Pacers..
Do you honestly believe that will factor in?

sc
01-19-2006, 01:10 PM
25 Games, no tolerance, right that is what he said.

Doug
01-19-2006, 01:13 PM
Hmm...come to think of it, he plays for the Knicks too.:devil:

Yes, but he was a Pacer once. Stern is going to be so conflicted.

:-)

Peck
01-19-2006, 02:03 PM
Um guys Anthony Johnson did not get 5 games for going into the stands at Detroit.

He never entered the stands. A.J. was given his suspension because he pummled a guy on the floor of the Palace.

As to the issue at hand I am conflicted.

On the one hand you have Stern who has stated that there will zero tolerance for going into the stands no matter what the excuse is.

On the other hand you have one of the player reps. who has been a model citizen, for the most part, for his entire career. Who did nothing but go into the stands.

My guess is he will recieve some form of suspension it will be to long for some & way to short for others.

This could not have happened to a worse team for some Pacer fans though. Had it been anybody but the Knicks it wouldn't be such an issue but unless he recieves a season long suspension there will be many fans on here who will scream bloody murder that Stern is in cahoots with the Knicks again.

As was said before, & yes I know Able hates this but even he has to admit it's true, Ron Artest was given his length of suspension because of his past.

It was never considered an isolated incident.

However, I don't know how you can reconcile Stern saying "no player shall go in the stands NO MATTER WHAT" with anything less than a severe punishment.

hoopsforlife
01-19-2006, 02:20 PM
Do you honestly believe that will factor in?

I really hope not. :shrug:

sweabs
01-19-2006, 02:20 PM
As Peck pointed out, how else are we to interpret or manipulate "No player should go into the stands...no matter what"?

Stern set the precedent, and I believe that he must follow through with a suspension as severe as what Artest was given. Going into the stands is going into the stands, and Stern made no distinction as to variance within the set punishment based upon the severity or consequences surrounding the situation. Therefore, it seems logical to take him at his original word - "No player should go into the stands...no matter what".

After all, who is to say that something similar to what happened at the Palace couldn't have ensued as a result of AD's actions? Once you go up there, any number of things could occur - AD was just fortunate that nothing else happened.

I don't recall Stern ever making a clear distinction between "going up in the stands with the intent to injure" and "going up in the stands with the intent to inquire". All he said was that no player was to go into the stands - regardless of circumstances, and for that, I believe AD must accept a suspension for the rest of the season.

Doug
01-19-2006, 02:31 PM
I'm surprised there isn't some kind of standard procedure for the players in the event something like this happens. For example, "In the event that a player goes into the stands or otherwise becomes in a confrontation with a spectator, all players must move to the free-throw line closest to their bench. They shall remain in this area until such time as directed to return to the bench by the head referee or directed and escorted to the locker room by security."

Maybe they do. I didn't get a chance to see the players, refs, and security's reaction on TV.

Slick Pinkham
01-19-2006, 02:37 PM
Stern set the precedent, and I believe that he must follow through with a suspension as severe as what Artest was given. Going into the stands is going into the stands, and Stern made no distinction as to variance within the set punishment based upon the severity or consequences surrounding the situation. Therefore, it seems logical to take him at his original word - "No player should go into the stands...no matter what".


A rule is a rule and he should definitely get suspended.

But do you think that Ron history of regularly getting in trouble and always finding himself in Stern's office played a role in Ron getting a whole year off?

OF COURSE!

AD will be punished, but the punishment does not have to be equal to Ron's.

An example: You catch 2 people shoplifting and one has a squeaky clean history and one has a list of prior crimes a mile long. You punish them both, but you don't punish them equally. And just because you don't punish them equally doesn't make shoplifting OK or mean that you are being unfair or providing mixed messages about shoplifting.

Ron does not equal AD.

The punishment won't be the same, and that is NOT unfair or biased.

Chauncey
01-19-2006, 02:44 PM
As Peck pointed out, how else are we to interpret or manipulate "No player should go into the stands...no matter what"?

Stern set the precedent, and I believe that he must follow through with a suspension as severe as what Artest was given. Going into the stands is going into the stands, and Stern made no distinction as to variance within the set punishment based upon the severity or consequences surrounding the situation. Therefore, it seems logical to take him at his original word - "No player should go into the stands...no matter what".

After all, who is to say that something similar to what happened at the Palace couldn't have ensued as a result of AD's actions? Once you go up there, any number of things could occur - AD was just fortunate that nothing else happened.

I don't recall Stern ever making a clear distinction between "going up in the stands with the intent to injure" and "going up in the stands with the intent to inquire". All he said was that no player was to go into the stands - regardless of circumstances, and for that, I believe AD must accept a suspension for the rest of the season.

Rcarey, I like your posts generally, so I'm asking this with as much respect as possible......

Are you actually trying to think about this without using your common sense or what? Do you not understand how heavily Artests many other transgressions factored-in on his year long suspension? You've heard of the straw that broke the camel's back, right? Well for Artest, it was an anvil he used to break the camel's back.

sweabs
01-19-2006, 02:47 PM
In response to Pacertom and Chauncey,

A suspension for the rest of the season at this point, January 19th, would not end up being as severe as Ron's (which began in late November).

Slick Pinkham
01-19-2006, 03:09 PM
A suspension for the rest of the season at this point, January 19th, would not end up being as severe as Ron's (which began in late November).

And if AD's suspension is 5 games, or 6.8% of Ron's 73 game suspension, I think that it would be completely fair considering the history of the two individuals.

PostArtestEra
01-19-2006, 03:21 PM
Everyone keeps saying "its not the same thing." Yes it is. He felt threatened he went into the stands. Except no one stepped to him when he went into the stands everyone backed off. The guy Artest threw down wasnt calmly minding his business he was screaming at Artest and taunting him. No one did this when Davis went into the stands. No one was standing next to his wife making crude comments to him or threatening them after he went into the stands. You guys want to punish the result not the action. The action is going into the stands, and Stern said he won't stand for it. We'll see if thats true.

Slick Pinkham
01-19-2006, 03:27 PM
On the contrary, PostArtestEra, I want to punish the perpetrator for the action and I am not giving the result any consideration.

This perpetrator has no record. The other one had a rap sheet a mile long. Is that so hard to understand?

Stern won't stand for players going into the stands. He will suspend him a small fraction of what he did Ron, and you and others here will whine and moan about how unfair it is, and you will simply be wrong.

Since86
01-19-2006, 03:30 PM
I agree with Charles Barkley on the Dan Patrick show.

He says they(the players) bring one fan down and beat the hell out of them once a game, and that would stop fans from acting like idiots.

Charcoal Filtered
01-19-2006, 04:24 PM
I agree with Charles Barkley on the Dan Patrick show.

He says they(the players) bring one fan down and beat the hell out of them once a game, and that would stop fans from acting like idiots.


Would that stop player wives too from acting like a jackass?

It is lucky that it took this long for someone to confront her. If AD cannot keep his wife in pocket, he is at fault. As Stern said, you cannot have players going into the crowd. Suspending even the most squeaky clean player for the year would absolutely ensure no other player making the same mistake (running into the crowd or letting your wife act like an idiot).

Charcoal Filtered
01-19-2006, 05:57 PM
Think any differently after reading this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10918557/

This is the same wife that got in Latrell Spreewell's face. Give him 20 games or the entire season for not keeping his wife in line and then getting into the crowd to fight her idiotic battles.

Shade
01-19-2006, 06:34 PM
So, he got 5 games, just I suspected.

Stern dropped the ball yet again.

Slick Pinkham
01-19-2006, 06:44 PM
Stern dropped the ball yet again.

How so?

Based upon the poll at ESPN, most fans think 5 games is far too harsh.

I think that it's just about right.

Hoop
01-19-2006, 07:04 PM
I still have to go all the way back to Veron Maxwell, a guy with a Ron like background and reputation. He goes up 10 rows and punches a guy, causing harm and only got 10 games. Regardless of the AD situation, the Pacers got screwed.

Shade
01-19-2006, 07:19 PM
How so?

Based upon the poll at ESPN, most fans think 5 games is far too harsh.

I think that it's just about right.

AD's suspension completely defies the precedent sent down by Stern last year.

Charcoal Filtered
01-19-2006, 07:58 PM
Did you not know that as long as you thought your wife was in trouble, it was ok even though it was your stupid wife causing the problems? This was not fans throwing things at the players, this was a wife causing trouble and the player should be able to jump in the stands.

It is a clear precedent. (Sarcasm)

N8R
01-19-2006, 08:16 PM
Did you are know that The guy she was arguing with is now going to sue her and Davis for $1 million.

"Axelrod's attorney, Jay Paul Deratany, said he planned to sue Davis and his wife for more than $1 million. Deratany said he was writing the papers Thursday for a battery suit against Kendra Davis and a slander case against Antonio Davis, and planned to file them Friday."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AsMF5zQY1d2HMfmj989hSYm8vLYF?slug=ap-knicks-davissuspended&prov=ap&type=lgns

skyfire
01-19-2006, 08:35 PM
Stern never made a precedent with Ron, that why I didn't like the suspension. He made an overly harsh suspension and tried to use Ron as an example to try and made players realise they shouldn't go into the stands.

If he'd come out and said, any player going into the stands is going to get X games suspension and any physical violence whilst in the stands is an automatic rest of the season suspension, to a minimum of Y games, then that would be a clearly defined precedent.

The fact that a model NBA citizen like AD would go into the stands slightly more than a year later means that Stern's actions with Ron did not work.

owl
01-19-2006, 09:03 PM
I have no problem with the 5 games, it is just that Ron's 73 or whatever it was, was excessive. But I will not go there anymore.



owl

N8R
01-19-2006, 09:10 PM
5 games Even I can deal with. I thought it would be more just cause he was the first after ronnie.

Chauncey
01-20-2006, 12:09 AM
AD's suspension completely defies the precedent sent down by Stern last year.

You're just never going to get it, are you? Your new name is ******.

Whoa, S*a*s*s*a*n is verboden?

Hicks
01-20-2006, 12:16 AM
You're just never going to get it, are you? Your new name is ******.

Whoa, S*a*s*s*a*n is verboden?

Per his request. He doesn't want his name mentioned, and I've done my best to honour his request.

Bball
01-20-2006, 02:36 AM
Per his request. He doesn't want his name mentioned, and I've done my best to honour his request.

I don't blame you for it but isn't he being silly?

On another front... Based on what Stern did last year and his supposed goals (no player ever to enter the stands) the suspension should've been longer BUT I'd have no problem with part of that being a probationary period or simply a "suspended sentence".

IOW- You give him 25 games (or whatever) then acknowledge the mitigating circumstances and make 20 of those 'probationary' so he only really misses the 5 games (and of course plays the next 20 'probationary' games under elevated scrutiny). A 'normal' suspendable offense in those 'probationary games' could lead to a much harsher suspension period (revoking of probation).

But what do I know? ....

-BBall