PDA

View Full Version : Stackhouse suspended from Game 5 for hard foul on Shaq



BoomBaby31
06-16-2006, 08:28 PM
Title says it all... Not because I want the Mavs to win but, isn't that bull****? I mean it wasn't that hard of a foul, he didn't push after the foul, after they made contact he stop it was like it intentionally tried to hurt shaq. I don't understand why it is a suspension.

Young
06-16-2006, 08:33 PM
I guess Stern is pulling for the Heat to win.

I know you need to stick with the rules no matter if it's pre season or the finals but I don't think that was a foul that was bad enough for a supension. Hell I don't even think that was really a FF. I didn't think that Stackhouse was trying to hurt Shaq. It was a hard foul, no doubt.

Shade
06-16-2006, 08:48 PM
**** Stern. Seriously. That cheating weasel. There's no way in hell that warranted a suspension.

I knew that Stern would do anything in his power to ensure that he doesn't have to award the trophy to Cuban. He saw his opportunity and seized it like the weasel he is.

Trader Joe
06-16-2006, 09:00 PM
Wow what weak move by the NBA and Stern. Cuban is gonna throw a **** fit and rightfully so.

Why doesn't Stern just hand the Heat the tropy with a Shaq jersey and Wade's shoes on and that damned Wade commercial playing on the big screen with his hair slicked back Riles style.

Unclebuck
06-16-2006, 09:46 PM
What Stack did was probably worse then what Artest did to Manu, what Posey did to Hinrick, and what Bell did to Kobe and they were all suspended one game. So if the NBA wanted to be consistant a suspension was warranted.

grace
06-16-2006, 10:02 PM
Um, isn't it Stu Jackson in charge of assessing suspensions?

Anthem
06-16-2006, 10:03 PM
Reminds me of when Travis Best got the flagrant against Shaq.

I mean, how is that even possible?

Lord Helmet
06-16-2006, 10:06 PM
Um, isn't it Stu Jackson in charge of assessing suspensions?
I bet Stern has the final word. I mean this is David Stern we're talking about.

shags
06-16-2006, 10:39 PM
What Stack did was probably worse then what Artest did to Manu, what Posey did to Hinrick, and what Bell did to Kobe and they were all suspended one game. So if the NBA wanted to be consistant a suspension was warranted.

I agree. I don't think it was on the level of what Bell did to Kobe, but it was definitely similar to what Posey did to Hinrich. There was no intent to go for the ball, and it was purely intentional.

I hope the Mavs win the series, but that was a easy decision IMO. You HAVE to suspend Stackhouse.

Hicks
06-16-2006, 10:46 PM
There was no intent to go for the ball, and it was purely intentional.

I hope the Mavs win the series, but that was a easy decision IMO. You HAVE to suspend Stackhouse.

So what? That's what the flargant foul is there for! That doesn't mean he deserved a suspension.

I'll put it this way: If what Stack did deserved a suspension, then 90% of all flagrant fouls deserve a suspension.

shags
06-16-2006, 10:58 PM
So what? That's what the flargant foul is there for! That doesn't mean he deserved a suspension.

I'll put it this way: If what Stack did deserved a suspension, then 90% of all flagrant fouls deserve a suspension.

The NBA's changed. They don't allow players to deliver flying forearms anymore. This is consistent with how the NBA has been doling out punishments in the playoffs, and the only suspension that was worse, IMO, was Bell's clothesline of Kobe (and he's lucky he only got one game).

Stackhouse was incredibly stupid to put himself in that position. There was absolutely no intent to go for the ball. I just fail to see how anyone, other than Dallas fans, can think that he doesn't deserve to be suspended, unless they don't think that anything else deserved a suspension.

Hicks
06-16-2006, 11:03 PM
You don't seem to get it. A flagrant foul exists for exactly what Stackhouse did: No intent to go for the ball. The appropriate call was made, and that should have been the end of it.

shags
06-16-2006, 11:14 PM
You don't seem to get it. A flagrant foul exists for exactly what Stackhouse did: No intent to go for the ball. The appropriate call was made, and that should have been the end of it.

And if the NBA doesn't suspend Stackhouse, there's two or three of those a game. That's been the precedent throughout the playoffs, and Stackhouse should have known that.

BoomBaby31
06-16-2006, 11:15 PM
I think it was a hard foul but, Wade and Walker overdramatized the situation to draw a flagrant but, in reality they got even more then that they got in suspended. Stack went for the ball, Shaq is just so much bigger then him he couldn't reach up and grab it. This fouls isn't ANYTHING like the Posey, Bell, or Artest on. Artest blatantly went over and threw an elbow in Manu's face, Bell clotheslined him for no reason like he was at Venice Beach or something, and Posey basically did a side tackle on Hinrech before he even shot. None of those were in the act of shooting, Stack went for the ball and Shaq big old *** fell as hard as any 7'1 one guy would when he got knocked over.

Stryder
06-16-2006, 11:25 PM
Did Stackhouse's move draw a flagrant during the game? I didn't watch Game 4.

If it did, I assume it was a flagrant 1, not a 2.


What Stack did was probably worse then what Artest did to Manu, what Posey did to Hinrick, and what Bell did to Kobe and they were all suspended one game. So if the NBA wanted to be consistant a suspension was warranted.

I know you snuggle up to Artest every night (:D ), but geeze, how can you equate what he did to Ginobili to this incident?

Hell, and what Bell did to Bryant, alot of us liked to see, but it was far worse on the scale of physical play than what Stackhouse did to O'Neal.

Sollozzo
06-16-2006, 11:33 PM
Everyone needs to ask themselves this.

Can you honestly believe that the NBA would have supsended Shaq if it had been the other way around and it had been him fouling Stack hard?

I don't think there's a single person who can honestly believe that Shaquille O'Neal would have been supsended a game for the same thing. Shaq's been a precious asset for the league for well over a decade. Not a chance in hell he'd get suspended for the same thing.

BoomBaby31
06-16-2006, 11:43 PM
Everyone needs to ask themselves this.

Can you honestly believe that the NBA would have supsended Shaq if it had been the other way around and it had been him fouling Stack hard?

I don't think there's a single person who can honestly believe that Shaquille O'Neal would have been suspended for a game for the same thing. Shaq's been a precious asset for the league for well over a decade. Not a chance in hell he'd get suspended for the same thing.

If shaq would of jumped up smacked Stack, threw him down and started kicking him Stern would have Never suspended him. They would of fined him and I'm sure it would hurt his 30mill a year lol.. but NO WAY shaq would EVER be suspended on a hard foul. Shaq gives Stackhouse 6 stitches in his nose and nothing was even said. It's wrong in my book, I tell you the NBA and NFL have really been disappointing me the last couple years with the referring and favoritism.

pizza guy
06-16-2006, 11:49 PM
I'm with Hicks on this one. It was a hard foul, and he didn't appear to make a play on the ball (though the "Shaq's just huge!" argument can be made). Those factors add up to a flagrant foul, which was called. I completely agree with that.

But why a suspension? It wasn't overly malicious, or uncalled for. Certainly no where close to what Bell did to Kobe. I agree with a flagrant, but not a suspension, I don't think the severity of it matched those other suspension worthy actions.

Stryder
06-16-2006, 11:55 PM
So, Stackhouse was called for a Flagrant 1 during the game. The refs made the decision that the foul did not warrant the Flagrant 2 and the ejection? If so, it is crapola that Stackhouse has been suspended by the Tsar's cronies.

I really don't like how they can go back and "rewrite" history by suspending someone.

Pingu
06-17-2006, 04:56 AM
This foul deserves a suspension.

O'neal and/or the spectators could have been hurt badly. That's the important point here.

And Avery Johnson saying that the league is inconsistant is ridiculous. If Mbenga got 6 games for entering the stands, Stackhouse deserves 1 game for what he did.

NorCal_Pacerfan
06-17-2006, 05:47 AM
I have to agree with those that feel this is Stern's way of handing the Heat game 5. This is just a pathetic lame call that just makes the NBA seem more like the WWE or something. That foul was a hard flagarent but I really don't think he deserved to be suspended. But hey, that's just my 2 cents. I'm probably a little biased, because I don't want the Heat to win, but whatever.

Slick Pinkham
06-17-2006, 07:10 AM
Stack went for the ball...

I have no idea what game it was you were watching. Stack didn't get within 6 inches of the ball. He didn't even appear to try to get the ball. The contact was aimed at his upper arms and head area. The intent was to put Shaq on the floor. When a player has jumped into the air, that's about the most dangerous type of contact possible.

That said, hard fouls USED to be part of he game. I think the NBA is really going overboard with their suspensions these days, but it's their perogative, I suppose.

They established a precident of suspending players for a game after cheap shot/excessive contact flagrant fouls, so this one was warranted.

I expect the suspension will rally Dallas, just like the Terry suspension and other one-game suspensions like Raja Bell in the Lakers series. They have a deep bench and Avery is about to kick some butt.

larry
06-17-2006, 07:46 AM
**** Stern. Seriously. That cheating weasel. There's no way in hell that warranted a suspension.

I knew that Stern would do anything in his power to ensure that he doesn't have to award the trophy to Cuban. He saw his opportunity and seized it like the weasel he is.

co-sign

Hicks
06-17-2006, 08:22 AM
It seems like some of you feel like any flagrant foul should be followed up with a suspension.

The way I see, the severity should decide how high up the latter we go: Flagrant 1, Flagrant 2, or Flagrant 2 that is followed up by a suspension because it was just that bad.

Here we have Flagrant 1's where a player gets suspended, and what's worse there's actually a modest amount of public support because of the "what ifs".

BlueNGold
06-17-2006, 08:34 AM
I think the play deserved a suspension. It was not a punch, but was a hard, intentional forearm shiver to the head while a player was in the air. What if Shaq had been injured on that play and taken out of the series? Any Mavs championship would be tainted.

Interestingly, if it had not been a 350 pound all-star center going down, it would not have been a suspension. For example, if Eddie Gill had been the recipient of that foul, Stack would be playing game 5 and Gill would have been called for an offensive foul. Maybe that's the thing that bothers people.

Unclebuck
06-17-2006, 08:38 AM
Yesterday I was watching a Finals game on NBATV against the Pistons and the Lakers from 1988. A foul was committed by two Lakers on John Salley that was twice as bad as anything I've seen in these playoffs. If that is committed in 2006, two Lakers get ejected and they both get suspended, but in 1988, it was called a foul and Salley got two free throws. The announcers, Dick Stockton and Billy Cunningham both said it was a good foul and didn't say anything else.

The game has changed.


Hicks, Stackhouse's foul was upgraded to a flagrant two. And that is why he was suspended. Although a flag 2 doesn't automatically mean a suspension.

317Kim
06-17-2006, 09:22 AM
This is a huge bummer for the Mavs. :suicide2:


"My daughters tackle me harder when I come home," O'Neal said. "I'm one of the last players of the old school, and you know, you just have to take a hard foul like that and keep on moving. It actually felt pretty good to get hit like that. Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate it."

grace
06-17-2006, 10:47 AM
It seems like some of you feel like any flagrant foul should be followed up with a suspension.

The way I see, the severity should decide how high up the latter we go: Flagrant 1, Flagrant 2, or Flagrant 2 that is followed up by a suspension because it was just that bad.

Here we have Flagrant 1's where a player gets suspended, and what's worse there's actually a modest amount of public support because of the "what ifs".

The way I see it is if Jerry had plowed into someone other than Shaq that person could have really been hurt. Just because Shaq got up doesn't make it less flagrant.

I also think that this suspension falls right into line with the suspensions the league has been handing down this post season.

Sollozzo
06-17-2006, 10:57 AM
Yesterday I was watching a Finals game on NBATV against the Pistons and the Lakers from 1988. A foul was committed by two Lakers on John Salley that was twice as bad as anything I've seen in these playoffs. If that is committed in 2006, two Lakers get ejected and they both get suspended, but in 1988, it was called a foul and Salley got two free throws. The announcers, Dick Stockton and Billy Cunningham both said it was a good foul and didn't say anything else.

The game has changed.


Hicks, Stackhouse's foul was upgraded to a flagrant two. And that is why he was suspended. Although a flag 2 doesn't automatically mean a suspension.


The game maybe has changed, but can you honestly sit here and tell me that you believe the great Shaquille O'Neal would have been suspended for doing the same thing Stackhouse did?

Robertmto
06-17-2006, 12:22 PM
:censored: cheatin *** :censored: sucking Stern. How the :censored: does that foul warrant a :censored: :censored: suspension? He's a cheating son of a :censored: :censored: :censored: . Now have a nice day.

















:censored: s

Unclebuck
06-17-2006, 12:32 PM
The game maybe has changed, but can you honestly sit here and tell me that you believe the great Shaquille O'Neal would have been suspended for doing the same thing Stackhouse did?



Yes I believe that 100%.

Robertmto
06-17-2006, 12:33 PM
Yes I believe that 100%.

Wha wha?? :laugh:

Stryder
06-17-2006, 01:39 PM
The way I see it is if Jerry had plowed into someone other than Shaq that person could have really been hurt. Just because Shaq got up doesn't make it less flagrant.

I also think that this suspension falls right into line with the suspensions the league has been handing down this post season.

What about the Reggie Evans sack grabbing incident? No suspension there.

Trader Joe
06-17-2006, 01:43 PM
"My daughters tackle me harder when I come home," O'Neal said. "I'm one of the last players of the old school, and you know, you just have to take a hard foul like that and keep on moving. It actually felt pretty good to get hit like that. Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate it."


What a smug fat ***. He knows he could say whatever the :censored: he wants and get away with it. :censored: this :censored: . This playoffs is ruined for me if the Heat win game 5 and then the series. I am dead serious. This would completely taint it.

Stryder
06-17-2006, 01:45 PM
It's time to start making the players wear skirts. The game is being sissy-fied.

BoomBaby31
06-17-2006, 01:53 PM
This foul deserves a suspension.

O'neal and/or the spectators could have been hurt badly. That's the important point here.

And Avery Johnson saying that the league is inconsistant is ridiculous. If Mbenga got 6 games for entering the stands, Stackhouse deserves 1 game for what he did.

For look at the replay NO SPECTATOR was touched until Wade ran over and grabbed shaq and made him lose his balance then Shaq used that poor old guy as a hoist up.

Shaq can throw mad elbows, slip guy's noses WIDE open, Stackhouse recieved 5-6 stitches from his damn elbowing swing A$$. Stern wants to give O'neal, and Riley another ring it's that simple NO WaY you can look at that tape and say it was worth a suspension. Stackhouse didn't follow through, he didn't get in anyones face, it was almost like the Artest fould on Wallace. The little guys have to jump to reach the big guys and their body's collided to make it alot worst then it is. I have to give "props" to the Heat by the way they dramatized the whole situation more teams should start doing that. Next time shaq elbows someone in the face run over hold him back, and have someone go get up in shaqs face, then have them walk around with blood streaming down thier face just make it full of drama see if they can get a suspension.

grace
06-17-2006, 02:52 PM
What about the Reggie Evans sack grabbing incident? No suspension there.

I guess that makes him on the same level as Shaq. Who woulda guessed. :shrug:

Arcadian
06-17-2006, 03:03 PM
I think it is just the way they are going to call it now. Especially if they think it is retaliation. We are in the era of a kinder, gentler NBA.

By the way I don't get the word retaliate. Who has taliated once much less twice?

VF21
06-17-2006, 05:34 PM
I watched that play about 5 times. IF the league office is going to be consistent with the other suspensions they've handed out during these playoffs, they HAVE to sit Stackhouse out for game 5.

I hate, detest and abhor Shaquille O'Neal. But, having said that, I do not condone on the fly body slams of someone of the type Stackhouse used.

Unclebuck
06-17-2006, 07:36 PM
Reggie Evans should have been suspended for the rest of the playoffs. I thought his offense was the worst.

Jon Theodore
06-17-2006, 11:26 PM
What Stack did was probably worse then what Artest did to Manu, what Posey did to Hinrick, and what Bell did to Kobe and they were all suspended one game. So if the NBA wanted to be consistant a suspension was warranted.


this is true

and i am pulling for the mavs

Sollozzo
06-18-2006, 12:28 AM
Yes I believe that 100%.


If you believe that, I applaud you.

I realize that the NBA is more about being a business and making money than anything else. Totally speaking hypothetically, if Shaq had been the one who did the fouling, I believe 99.9% that the NBA would NOT have suspended him. Shaq has been an ambassador to the league for well over a decade. Shaq is on commercials. Everyone knows who Shaq is. Shaq has been the second most marketable player outside of Jordan from the 90's to present.

Ratings in the NBA are all about superstars. The NBA could care less about marketing to someone like you or the others who post here. The diehards will watch the games no matter what. The NBA is concerned about those who could go either way as far as watching games. Everyone knows who Shaquille O'Neal is, whether they are a basketball fan or not.

MLB and NFL will always have their solid ratings. Superstars aren't as important in those leagues. Superstars have always made the NBA. The NBA has 3 big superstars in this finals, Dirk, Shaq, and Wade. I highly doubt any of them would be suspended for what Stack did.

rabid
06-18-2006, 01:38 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised with some of the responses on this. The moment I saw that foul on TV I turned to my friend and said "Stackhouse is gonna be suspended for that."

As some others have mentioned, this is right in line with some of the other suspensions we've seen in this playoffs. There was no play on the ball, Stack went right for the head/face, and Shaq was in mid-air/defenseless at the time.

Sorry but in 2006 that a textbook flagrant 2, and the suspension doesn't surprise me at all. (as UB mentioned, the foul was upgraded to a flagrant 2 after the game).

For those who claim that Shaq would have gotten away with that, I think that's laughable. If Shaq had fouled Stackhouse in that exact way Stack would be in the hospital right now, possibly with a broken neck.

There is nothing shocking or controversial about this suspension to me at all.

Roy Munson
06-18-2006, 02:08 PM
Yes I believe that 100%.

I think that's a little bit naive. Shaq IS protected and he always has been.

Shaq HAS hit people that hard (not in this series, but others in the past few years). But because of his size it doesn't look like such a hard hit. In fact a few years back when the Lakers beat the Kings in the western final, I can't remember the player he flattened (Doug Christie?) at a crucial point at the end of a game, and not only was he not suspended, but it wasn't even called a foul.

Perhaps your 100% conviction is because the league has tighted things up, but I still think it is naive to thing that the league would suspend Shaq for a hit like that.

Before this series I called Miami in 6, and the reason I gave was that the officials would protect Shaq and make bad calls in Miami's favor involving Shaq.

Bball
06-18-2006, 03:41 PM
It's the finals... Just as we've talked about refs not deciding a game with a ticky tack foul in the waning moments, neither should the league.

Unless body parts were separated, or there was a total breakdown in court decorum, you shouldn't suspend a player during the finals. Fine the absolute crap out of him. Fine the team. Delay the suspension until the regular season next season. Whatever.

Ejecting him from a game is one thing, but to suspend him after the fact is another. Once you're in the finals the margin of error is almost nil. Both teams have gone too far to have a series cheapened by an arguable decision handed down from the ivory tower. I don't care about precedent at that point and comparing it to other playoff games or the season in general. This is not another playoff game or the regular season so there is no comparison. This is the finals.

First and foremost, it is a subjective call. No matter which side of the equation you are on, it still boils down to a subjective decision. Someone will always be able to cry 'foul' in that case.

That's not what you want in the finals.

Those are my feelings on the subject.... but what do I know?
-Bball

vapacersfan
06-18-2006, 03:54 PM
It's the finals... Just as we've talked about refs not deciding a game with a ticky tack foul in the waning moments, neither should the league.

Unless body parts were separated, or there was a total breakdown in court decorum, you shouldn't suspend a player during the finals. Fine the absolute crap out of him. Fine the team. Delay the suspension until the regular season next season. Whatever.

Ejecting him from a game is one thing, but to suspend him after the fact is another. Once you're in the finals the margin of error is almost nil. Both teams have gone too far to have a series cheapened by an arguable decision handed down from the ivory tower. I don't care about precedent at that point and comparing it to other playoff games or the season in general. This is not another playoff game or the regular season so there is no comparison. This is the finals.

First and foremost, it is a subjective call. No matter which side of the equation you are on, it still boils down to a subjective decision. Someone will always be able to cry 'foul' in that case.

That's not what you want in the finals.

Those are my feelings on the subject.... but what do I know?
-Bball

You can blame the league for making a tough call, but then you also have to blame the player for making a bone headed play, esp. at a critical point in the series.

Bball
06-18-2006, 04:39 PM
You can blame the league for making a tough call, but then you also have to blame the player for making a bone headed play, esp. at a critical point in the series.

I did... I said to fine the player (and I didn't mean a hand slap fine altho I don't know what max (if any) the CBA allows). I said they could fine his team. Even suspend him a game(s) next season. Just don't unnecessarily cheapen the series for the fans and players on a judgement call of this nature.

I would've been accepting of an ejection at the time but that was the refs' call and IMHO they made the right call.

I don't have a problem with things in the finals being handled differently than the regular season or even earlier in the playoffs...

But I am not talking letting things 'go'. I am simply saying you might handle them differently.

-Bball

vapacersfan
06-18-2006, 05:12 PM
I did... I said to fine the player (and I didn't mean a hand slap fine altho I don't know what max (if any) the CBA allows). I said they could fine his team. Even suspend him a game(s) next season. Just don't unnecessarily cheapen the series for the fans and players on a judgement call of this nature.

I would've been accepting of an ejection at the time but that was the refs' call and IMHO they made the right call.

I don't have a problem with things in the finals being handled differently than the regular season or even earlier in the playoffs...

But I am not talking letting things 'go'. I am simply saying you might handle them differently.

-Bball

Personally I hate the theory of "treating the finals differently" then any other time of the year. I hate that in any sport, not just basketball. I see no reason why a player should get punished 2 games next year (namely pre-season games) for a crime he commited during the finals.

If you dont want to pay the consequences for a **** up, then dont do something stupid like tackle Shaq and not makea play on the ball.

I dont get to do my jail time for a crime I committed yesterday next week because I have a important interview tommorrow morning.

I guess you and I just have a different opinion of what "letting things go" is...
_________________

As for the foul, I thought it was way out of line. I honestly thought he was going to get a flagrent foul, and as soon as I saw it I knew he was going to get suspended.

I really hate the whole fining system, unless you are going to issue out fines like the ones JVG got for *****ing about the refs (Fine Jax or Sheed $100,000 the next time they run there mouth and see if they dont stop to think about what they say next time).

Sollozzo
06-18-2006, 05:42 PM
Personally I hate the theory of "treating the finals differently" then any other time of the year. I hate that in any sport, not just basketball. I see no reason why a player should get punished 2 games next year (namely pre-season games) for a crime he commited during the finals.

If you dont want to pay the consequences for a **** up, then dont do something stupid like tackle Shaq and not makea play on the ball.

I dont get to do my jail time for a crime I committed yesterday next week because I have a important interview tommorrow morning.

I guess you and I just have a different opinion of what "letting things go" is...
_________________

As for the foul, I thought it was way out of line. I honestly thought he was going to get a flagrent foul, and as soon as I saw it I knew he was going to get suspended.

I really hate the whole fining system, unless you are going to issue out fines like the ones JVG got for *****ing about the refs (Fine Jax or Sheed $100,000 the next time they run there mouth and see if they dont stop to think about what they say next time).



Sorry, but the finals IS different than any other time of year. The finals is when the league wants the big ratings. This isn't a meaningless regular season game, this is where everything is on the line.

I agree with Bball that it cheapens the series a bit. Shaq got up and walked. Shaq was fine. Shaquille O'Neal has hit players much harder than that in his career.

For anyone to believe that Shaquille O'Neal would actually get suspended in the finals is laughable. The NBA ratings are based on superstars. Whereas in baseball, it's teams that make rivalries (Yankees-Red Sox), it's superstars that get ratings in the NBA. Unless the NBA wanted to shoot itself in the foot, there is no way they would suspend Shaq for a flag.

I think some people in general are a bit naive to the number 1 priority in the NBA being making money and getting ratings. Caring about the fairness of games is second. People love the game so much that they don't want to believe this. Superstars like Jordan, Shaq, and Lebron in the future will always get preferential treatment. That's just the way it is. If Lebron pulls a hard flagarant on someone in the finals in a few years, do you really think he'd get pulled a game?

vapacersfan
06-18-2006, 05:47 PM
Sorry, but the finals IS different than any other time of year. The finals is when the league wants the big ratings. This isn't a meaningless regular season game, this is where everything is on the line.


Then blame the player for being stupid, not the league for enforcing a rule.


I agree with Bball that it cheapens the series a bit. Shaq got up and walked. Shaq was fine. Shaquille O'Neal has hit players much harder than that in his career.


Shaq got up and was ready to beat his ***, and Wade luckily kept him from doing so and getting ejected one way or another (he already had a tech)



For anyone to believe that Shaquille O'Neal would actually get suspended in the finals is laughable. The NBA ratings are based on superstars. Whereas in baseball, it's teams that make rivalries (Yankees-Red Sox), it's superstars that get ratings in the NBA. Unless the NBA wanted to shoot itself in the foot, there is no way they would suspend Shaq for a flag.


I assume you mean a foul....and I do beleive they would suspend him. If Shaq would have done that Stack would be in a Miami hospital right now and people would be calling for Shaq's head. And the NBA would have to suspend him, and I am willing to bet he would get more then a 1 game suspension.


I think some people in general are a bit naive to the number 1 priority in the NBA being making money and getting ratings. Caring about the fairness of games is second. People love the game so much that they don't want to believe this. Superstars like Jordan, Shaq, and Lebron in the future will always get preferential treatment. That's just the way it is. If Lebron pulls a hard flagarant on someone in the finals in a few years, do you really think he'd get pulled a game?

And I think people in general are being naive if they cant see that a presedent has been set for the playoffs and this is simply following the prescedent.

Do I think there is superstar treatment? Yes. It is one of my biggest beefs with todays "modern" NBA

Do I think Lebron would get suspended for a flagrent foul in the finals? No doubt!

ABADays
06-18-2006, 05:55 PM
Maybe there isn't a conspiracy in the league . . . but they aren't doing a very good job of making it look like there ISN'T one.

vapacersfan
06-18-2006, 06:23 PM
Maybe there isn't a conspiracy in the league . . . but they aren't doing a very good job of making it look like there ISN'T one.


:confused:

Kegboy
06-18-2006, 07:16 PM
Sorry, but the finals IS different than any other time of year. The finals is when the league wants the big ratings. This isn't a meaningless regular season game, this is where everything is on the line.


It's that line of thinking that would lead to Bavetta-esque calls that ensure the big markets are well represented. :tsk:

Calgary Jazz
06-18-2006, 10:11 PM
No way Stack went after ball, he hit Shaq with elbow to the head and pushed hard while Shaq was in air, it is very dangerous because player doesn't have any support during that moment and even big guy like Shaq went down pretty hard. No way you can attack body of the player in the air it is to dangerous. Imagine what would have happened if it was a smaller player like J.Williams for example. And we all remember what happened to J.Johnson last year. Stack is a dirty player and punishment was right.

Robertmto
06-18-2006, 10:34 PM
It didn't warrant a suspension tho. I honestly think Stern is pulling for the Heat. HONESTLY

ChicagoJ
06-19-2006, 04:10 PM
I don't think I've seen this point in here, but IMO,

The league has been saying that all of these fouls should have been Flagrant Foul "2's" - with an ejection. That's the unwritten precedent.

Since the ref's allowed the player(s) to stay in the game, the league took it upon itself to do what the officials were too chicken-**** to do.

I'm not sure where to put this, and I'm not sure it merits its own thread, but I've got a suggestion for the "Hack-a-Shaq" problem:

Make all off-the-ball fouls a one-shot-and-retain-possession penalty.

This would eliminate the intentional off-the-ball fouls completely and make it more of a penalty to grab, hold, and foul a guy away from the ball (something that, no thanks to Chuck Daly, Hubie Brown, and later Pat Riley, we've been defining as "defense" since about 1990 but is NOT and has never been "good defense" - just legalized fouling.