PDA

View Full Version : I'm about to be one pi$$ed SOB



indygeezer
05-15-2007, 11:32 AM
Lookout Stern :mad: If players aren't suspended for leaving the bench during the SA-Pho fracus last night I'm gonna be one mad mutha.

Precedent: Detroit Brawl.......Reggie in street clothes and a cast on his hand...stood up to see what was going on and got 1 game.

Precedent during PO's---Somebody supply when and where.....Jalen Rose stood up, stepped out on floor, realized what he had done and immediately sat down. I believe it was CBS pointed this out and broached the idea of him being suspended by the LETTER OF THE LAW.....and so he was.


Now this AM I hear Colin Cowcrow going on about how it just wouldn't be right because they didn't throw any punches yada yada the fans wanna see the players yadayada...etc you get the drift.

IMO (and I'm right on this one) if they do not suspend the players that left the bench then the NBA owes us at least one playoff game and perhaps more.
the precedent has already been set...unless they suddenly make an official rules change, they MUST suspend them.

Granville
05-15-2007, 11:40 AM
I agree. The Jalen suspension, if I recall correctly, was against the Bulls in the ECF.

Hicks
05-15-2007, 11:41 AM
Two wrongs won't make a right; I think the rule needs modification. If the players who leave the bench realize they're in the wrong and return without making contact with the players in the scuffle, they shouldn't be suspended. I think the rule needs to include something like that.

In the meantime, they went letter of the law then, and you're right they should now.

Sucks for Phoenix, and it's truly unfortunate, but it is what it is.

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 11:48 AM
Two wrongs won't make a right; I think the rule needs modification. If the players who leave the bench realize they're in the wrong and return without making contact with the players in the scuffle, they shouldn't be suspended. I think the rule needs to include something like that.

In the meantime, they went letter of the law then, and you're right they should now.

Sucks for Phoenix, and it's truly unfortunate, but it is what it is.


I completely agree with everything you wrote. But you can't change the rule during the middle of the fight....well except to institute the Mark Jackson Rule.

King Tuts Tomb
05-15-2007, 11:50 AM
Half my brain: Come on! Just let this slide so we can have a good series.

The other half: This happened to Ron a couple years ago and he got the game. If you're going to torment the Pacers do it to everyone else!

Moses
05-15-2007, 11:52 AM
As a basketball fan, I don't want them to be suspended..but as a bitter Pacers fan I hope they get suspended for sure.

If you are suspending Amare and Diaw, you need to suspend Bowen and Horry as well.

JayRedd
05-15-2007, 12:01 PM
The rule is pretty cut and dry...You leave the bench, you get a suspension. So I don't really see anyway around suspending Amare. Diaw literally took two steps and didn't appear to even come close to leaving the coaches box, so I'm not so sure he'll get a game.

Rules are rules, even if they're outdated, stupid rules.

Alpolloloco
05-15-2007, 12:29 PM
Then Duncan is gonna get suspended too!

He left the bench when Elson and Jones collided after Jones undercut Elson after a dunk in the 2nd quarter.

That will be more fair, no Amare, no TD ...

CableKC
05-15-2007, 12:35 PM
This is the way the NBA works....they should get the appropriate suspensions for leaving the bench.....but will come up with some pseudo exception that will give them a reason not to suspend the players...most notably Amare.

Why? Cuz its good business to have this series go to 7 games and Stern is all about the $$$$ and won't want to tarnish the "clean cut image" of the Suns and Spurs.

I maybe exaggerating here....but if there is even any debate on this...when the rules are so "cut and dry"....it tells you something. If this were the Pacers and the Pistons.....you know that Stern would have already announced this yesterday night.

Shade
05-15-2007, 01:02 PM
Conversely, I'm going to be pissed if he DOES suspend Amare and Diaw.

It's time to solve the problem rather than compound it by upholding a stupid, nonsensical rule.

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 01:11 PM
Conversely, I'm going to be pissed if he DOES suspend Amare and Diaw.

It's time to solve the problem rather than compound it by upholding a stupid, nonsensical rule.


You change the rule before the next season, not the next game...or half...or timeout...or

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 01:23 PM
Just lifted this from RealGM (byline included)

NBA: Decision On Horry-Nash Fracas Could Come Today Or Wednesday
15th May, 2007 - 11:31 am
East Valley Tribune -
An NBA spokesperson said today that the incident between Robert Horry and Steve Nash that took place with 18.4 seconds remaining in Game 4 is currently under review, but there is no guarantee a decision will be made today -- only that it will be made prior to Game 5, meaning it could come Wednesday.

Horry body-checked Nash into the scorer's table late in the Suns' come-from-behind, 104-98 win in San Antonio that evened their best-of-seven Western Conference semifinal at 2-2.

Horry was ejected and could face a suspension, but the latter fate also may befall Suns Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, who both left the bench to go after Horry after the check.

NBA rules prohibit players from leaving the bench during an altercation and make it plain that violators will be suspended without pay for a minimum of one game and fined $35,000. [READ]

Shade
05-15-2007, 01:43 PM
You change the rule before the next season, not the next game...or half...or timeout...or

By then, it's too late. The Spurs have will have already been handed another series victory, all because a SPUR player took a cheap shot at a Suns player.

How, again, is that even remotely fair?

Hicks
05-15-2007, 01:45 PM
By then, it's too late. The Spurs have will have already been handed another series victory, all because a SPUR player took a cheap shot at a Suns player.

How, again, is that even remotely fair?

It's not, but it's the right thing to do. They can't change the rules in the "middle" of a season; it needs to come during the off-season.

grace
05-15-2007, 01:46 PM
Now this AM I hear Colin Cowcrow going on about how it just wouldn't be right because they didn't throw any punches yada yada the fans wanna see the players yadayada...etc you get the drift.


Your first mistake was listening to Colin Cowherd. Unless he's talking about college football don't pay attention to one word that comes out of his mouth.

As for suspensions if someone doesn't get suspended over what happened then it's pretty freakin' obvious that Stern and Stu have it out for certain players/teams.

DisplacedKnick
05-15-2007, 02:00 PM
By then, it's too late. The Spurs have will have already been handed another series victory, all because a SPUR player took a cheap shot at a Suns player.

How, again, is that even remotely fair?

It would be just about as fair as having a bunch of Knicks suspended for wandering a few feet onto the floor when PJ Brown threw Charlie Ward under the basket when we were heading back to NY with a 3-2 series lead.

It was a stupid rule then, it's a stupid rule now and if they don't enforce it, it'll just confirm that the league has had it in for the Knicks the last 30 years.

Shade
05-15-2007, 02:06 PM
I just don't believe in waiting to change a rule that is obviously dumb, because it should never have been instituted in the first place.

Why wait? None of us are getting any younger, or any less screwed over by the existing rule.

"Well, we'll go ahead and ruin Phoenix's season and hand the Spurs another title right now, then we'll fix the rule in the offseason." :crazy:

That's my #1 beef with the NBA. They compound their mistakes by making more mistakes instead of admitting they made a mistake and fixing the problem then and there.

Major Cold
05-15-2007, 02:07 PM
It's not, but it's the right thing to do. They can't change the rules in the "middle" of a season; it needs to come during the off-season.


Yeah that would be like changing the ball or something in the middle of the season to make the players happy. I really do not see suspension for anybody. But I don't make the rules. So what to do. Amare straight lied,cause he knew he was going to get suspended. Why would they put Amare back in the game? And if he was going to check back in why did he not continue? Did he check in after the hoopla? To make up a story to cover his actions appears that he knew he was guilty of an infraction. Even if the rule is lame.

Alpolloloco
05-15-2007, 02:07 PM
Here's the proof Duncan was also on the floor in yesterday's game ... too bad the camera turns away when Francisco Elson and James Jones have an altercation.

But you can clearly see TD stepping on the floor so if Amare and Diaw get suspended it means Duncan and Bowen are out too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Sq0uuaMHY

NuffSaid
05-15-2007, 02:18 PM
The way I see it, if you suspend players for leaving the bench - whether they realize their error or not, whether they got involved in the squirmish or not - you have to suspend every player who violates the rules. The 1-game suspension against Ron Artest is the only such suspension I can recall where the player, upon leaving the bench, realized his error and turned around of his own accord having never gotten involved in the altercation at the other end of the court. And yet he was still suspended.

If you're gonna punish one for such a minor infraction where even the player corrects himself, you have to do it for all.

Sidenote: I don't care how big this semi-conference game may be to either team. Seems when Ron got his 1-game suspension, the Pacers were in a post-season game, as well, and the league didn't seem to mind so much how losing that player affected their ability to compete nor the game's outcome.

Major Cold
05-15-2007, 02:19 PM
Here's the proof Duncan was also on the floor in yesterday's game ... too bad the camera turns away when Francisco Elson and James Jones have an altercation.

But you can clearly see TD stepping on the floor so if Amare and Diaw get suspended it means Duncan and Bowen are out too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Sq0uuaMHY

When has this rule been applied? When someone leaves the bench after an altercation. Is an accidental uncut where nether player approaches the other classify as an altercation? There is a difference between this and ever other time this rule has been discussed.

Who is to say that Timmy was celebrating the dunk? Or check in......

JayRedd
05-15-2007, 02:29 PM
When has this rule been applied? When someone leaves the bench after an altercation. Is an accidental uncut where nether player approaches the other classify as an altercation? There is a difference between this and ever other time this rule has been discussed.

Who is to say that Timmy was celebrating the dunk? Or check in......

I agree...That Elson thing wouldn't constitute an altercation.

And I believe that if Stern doesn't suspend Amare, that will also be his reasoning. That Horry on Nash was just a hard foul and not an "altercation".

Clearly, I'd say it was...but it's Stern's language to manipulate as he sees fit. He is a lawyer after all.

pacerDU
05-15-2007, 02:45 PM
The reason why they could get out of a suspension is, as mentioned, Amare was apparently just checking into the game (offense/defence subs in the last few seconds).

People could ask why he didn't keep going towards the scorer's table, but they can just say it was due to the fact the altercation was on and they didn't want to violate the rule.

It may or may not have been the case and as was mentioned they may not even see this as an altercation, but it's a viable enough story.

I'd rather they weren't suspended. I think everyone wants to see this series go the length.

King Tuts Tomb
05-15-2007, 03:25 PM
http://www.aolsportsblog.com/2007/05/15/the-debriefing-rules-are-rules-even-dumb-ones/

A few thoughts after watching the video a couple times:

-Amare was definitely off the bench to get into the fight, and it was a fight.
-Horry DECKED Nash. I don't love dirty play or anything but that was kind of awesome.
-Nash does a great little thing with his hands after he hits the table. Steve Nash would fly fifteen feet if you blew on him. What is it with international players and overacting?

Final verdict: Suspend Horry, Amare, Diaw. Fairs fair.

grace
05-15-2007, 03:48 PM
Why wait? None of us are getting any younger, or any less screwed over by the existing rule.

"Well, we'll go ahead and ruin Phoenix's season and hand the Spurs another title right now, then we'll fix the rule in the offseason." :crazy:

That's my #1 beef with the NBA. They compound their mistakes by making more mistakes instead of admitting they made a mistake and fixing the problem then and there.


The time for changing rules is in the off season. Maybe you can make a change during the regular season (example: going back to the original ball). You don't EVER change a rule in the middle of a playoff series. Why? Because all it does is give people like me and DK ammunition for our conspiracy theories.

Doug
05-15-2007, 03:49 PM
I suspect Stern will suspend Jermaine O'Neal, just, you know, because he can.

Roaming Gnome
05-15-2007, 03:57 PM
A rule is a rule. Every player in the NBA knows this rule. I don't care if you think it is dumb or not, the rule is there for a reason and that is to help expidite the officials to restore order in an already chotic situation. I personally agree with the rule, but understand a need for modification for players that don't enter the altercation and immediatly return to the bench. This just needs to happen at a FUTURE DATE!

Enforce the rule...Suspensions for all involved.

Anyway, If you want to play the what if game...I could almost be sure the Pacers would have made the Finals in 98 if Jalen doesn't get up and jog to the scorers table in game 4 during a very minor altercation. Hell, it took Doug Collins and the NBC crew a whole quarter after the altercation to reallize Jalen left the bench area and start talking letter of the rule.

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 03:57 PM
DK.....two words .......Larry Johnson.

conspiring against the Knicks my arse.



And Jalen left the bench during a PO game (Bulls as pointed out above) and immediately returned but the league suspended him anyway. Notice a pattern here....both instances it was the Pacers who were penalized. Now there is you Conspiracy Theory DK :-p

Mr.ThunderMakeR
05-15-2007, 03:58 PM
Am I the only one that things that the rule is fair the way it is? I think Amare and Diaw should be suspended along with Horry, and Bowen just for good measure. I mean the players know the rule, if they break it they know the consquences.

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 03:59 PM
Am I the only one that things that the rule is fair the way it is? I think Amare and Diaw should be suspended along with Horry, and Bowen just for good measure. I mean the players know the rule, if they break it they know the consquences.

I'm fine with the rule as long as it is equally enforced.

ABADays
05-15-2007, 04:08 PM
I'm with Geez on this one. It's a rule - enforce it. And I'm not so sure I disagree with it.

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 04:08 PM
This is a legit rule - basketball - unlike hockey - is a civilized game in which fans pay to see players play the game, not fight.

The league was struggling with this part of its image a decade or so, but the rule is not flawed. We don't want players leaving the bench during a fight, and the best way to enforce that is to enforce this rule during the playoffs.

Which Stern did to the Knicks against Miami.

Which Stern did to Jalen against Chicago (remember Bird's famous protest - "he was running to the scorer's table to check into the game" but then he didn't actually check into the game then. Oops.) when Ron Harper dragged Reggie into the Bulls bench after Reggie hit a shot from that corner of MSA.

Which Stern did to Artest in the playoffs a couple of years ago.

And of which Stern will do to the Suns players shortly.

We aren't talking about a game-seven suspension. The series is tied at 2. This is important, but whomever loses game #5 will still have a chance to tie up the series and force game #7.

Roaming Gnome
05-15-2007, 04:25 PM
I just love how ESPN can create drama out of nothing. The REAL story would be if the league does let it go. I honestly do believe ESPN sometimes tries to become the story. They reallize they can put pressure on the league in the court of public opinion, but I just don't see it happening with such a heavy precident to refer to.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-15-2007, 06:28 PM
Ok, so Baron Davis and clock Fisher in the head with his elbow, and NOT get suspended, but you think Amare should be suspended for stepping on the court? Why are flagrant fouls subject to the league's 'judgment' while stepping over a line in a given situation is not? Yeah, so it's a rule, but it's still an injustice, there's no question about it.

Big Smooth
05-15-2007, 06:54 PM
Suspension just announced on ESPN - 1 game each for Stoudamire and Diaw, 2 games for Horry.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-15-2007, 07:13 PM
Bull &O*&O#&YP(*&YQ#*PO&YQRPO*(&YQRP*&(YQPAEYh

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 07:15 PM
Looks about right to me.

Big Smooth
05-15-2007, 07:20 PM
Looks about right to me.

No surprise, that is for sure. I listened to Barkley try to argue against suspensions last night but I just thought "you are wasting your time Chuck, this is an automatic".

indygeezer
05-15-2007, 07:25 PM
I feel vindicated, justice has been served.

I can now let the Jalen Rose incident go. I won't forgive the networks but the NBA offices have done right.

PR07
05-15-2007, 07:30 PM
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid rule. Amare and Diaw simply reacted. They saw their best player in Nash get checked into the stands and they stood up and took a few steps toward the altercation. They never hit anybody, they never entered the main conflict, they simply took a few steps, realized what the situation was and sat back down on the bench. I could see a hefty fine, but to penalize two guys for simply reacting is absurd. This series could very well determine the next NBA Champ, and for the NBA to interfere once again and change the balance of this series upsets me...especially for something so minor. Let the players play, they never hurt anybody. I don't like this "Well, it happened to us...." Point our finger to someone else...."It should happen to them too." If it's a stupid rule, it needs to be changed. We're never going to feel that we got a fair deal in anything resulting in the Brawl because we didn't as we were made a precedent in many NBA issues.

NBA is a more physical game than baseball, right? Yet, how come baseball allows dugout to clear...even bullpens to clear with out any repurcusions unless any type of physical contact results. That's the way it should be in the NBA. Player are supposed to back one another and things like this. I'm not saying they need to start throwing down like Stephen Jackson on that fateful night, but to simply stand behind your guy and let him know that you have his back.

I think someone like Raja Bell is more guilty than Amare and Diaw after he tried to go after Horry and they actually had physical contact before being restrained.

Big Smooth
05-15-2007, 07:31 PM
I feel vindicated, justice has been served.

I can now let the Jalen Rose incident go. I won't forgive the networks but the NBA offices have done right.

I know all the media types were openly lobbying for Stern to not suspend those guys but I had no doubt in my mind.

I still think it's a rule that needs changed in the offseason.

Unclebuck
05-15-2007, 07:58 PM
The suspensions are to be expected. In fact that is what I said it would be and should be. Barkley doesn't know what he's talking about

grace
05-15-2007, 08:05 PM
Barkley doesn't know what he's talking about

Does that surprise you?

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 08:11 PM
I think this is a great rule. There is no reason for any bench player to feel compelled to step onto the court here. The four guys on the court don't get suspended if they are acting like peace makers.

So the "protect your teammate" line is nonsense.

bnd45
05-15-2007, 08:15 PM
The suspensions are to be expected. In fact that is what I said it would be and should be. Barkley doesn't know what he's talking about

Diaw didn't really stray too far from "the vicinity of the bench." The Spurs don't have the courtside seats next to the bench, so all of that area is considered the Suns bench. If you re-watch the incident you can make a legit argument that Diaw shouldn't have been suspended.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-15-2007, 09:03 PM
What about Duncan, when he went onto the court after the JJ incident? He should be suspended also. I agree with Steve Kerr.

Young
05-15-2007, 09:45 PM
What about Duncan, when he went onto the court after the JJ incident? He should be suspended also. I agree with Steve Kerr.

Exactly my thoughts. ****ing NBA.

Sand
05-15-2007, 09:59 PM
wow this years NBA champs could have easily just been decided by a silly rule... unfortunate for the Suns. to get up when a teammate gets clocked is just a natural response. I understand it is a strict rule, but in a game of this magnitude, it just doesn't make sense to punish the Suns far more then the Spurs, when the Spurs were by far the ones at fault here.

kybjones
05-15-2007, 11:14 PM
Precedent during PO's---Somebody supply when and where.....Jalen Rose stood up, stepped out on floor, realized what he had done and immediately sat down. I believe it was CBS pointed this out and broached the idea of him being suspended by the LETTER OF THE LAW.....and so he was.

The Bulls-Pacers 1998 Eastern Conference Finals -- one of the truly, underrated playoff series of the past 20 years. In the Game 4 "Miller over Jordan buzzer beater game," if you recall, there was an incident at Market Square Arena with Reggie Miller and Ron Harper going out of bounds at the Bulls bench. Harper gave a little extra curricular elbow/clearout above the shoulders that led to a Miller retaliation push. During the skirmish, Jalen Rose left the bench moving towards the scorer's table, in much the same manner as the Suns players in Game 4, only to be restrained and brought back to the bench area by Indiana assistant Rick Carlisle.

The NBA suspended Rose one game for leaving the bench area. Miller and Harper were fined $2,500 and $3,500 respectively, but neither player was suspended.

At that point in his career, Rose was providing a nice scoring spark off the Pacers bench, splitting minutes with mainstay Reggie Miller at shooting guard and a still-productive Chris Mullin and not-quite-dead Derrick McKey at small forward. Although his defense all but evaporated as the years have gone on, he was one of the few guys the Pacers had with the athleticism to matchup (albiet inferiorly) with Scottie Pippen or Michael Jordan defensively.

The Bulls went on to beat the Pacers going away in Game 5 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/CHI19980527.html) followed by a nail biting Game 7 clincher, possibly the most agonizing defeat I've ever experienced as a Pacers fan (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/CHI19980531.html).

Anyways, point being, the rule is a rule whether you like it or not and the league has been pretty consistent with how it has been interpreted (as far as I can remember). Trust me. It hurt me then, and I feel the pain of Suns fans now, but you have to move on.

Now excuse me while I go throw up remembering the outcome of that series.

SycamoreKen
05-15-2007, 11:39 PM
Ok, so Baron Davis and clock Fisher in the head with his elbow, and NOT get suspended, but you think Amare should be suspended for stepping on the court? Why are flagrant fouls subject to the league's 'judgment' while stepping over a line in a given situation is not? Yeah, so it's a rule, but it's still an injustice, there's no question about it.


If Horry gets suspended for hip checking Nash, who then reverted back to being a soccer player for the 2nd time this series, then Davis and Richardson should have been suspended as well. I have no problem with Horry's suspension, but the other two went after defenseless players, where Nash obviously saw it coming and flopped with the blow.

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 11:39 PM
On behalf of Rimfire, for everyone complaining about this happening during a playoff series - there isn't a single player suspended from an elimination game. Even Horry will be back for Game #7, although the two-game suspension seems harsh for as little contact as happened. He shouldn't have done it, clearly, but one game would've been sufficient.

So stick a sock in it.

10 years ago this week.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-97/05-16-97/d01sp147.htm

Everybody knows this is the rule. Harsh? Yes. Get over it. Far better players than Amare and Diaw have been suspended.

The Suns seriously overreacted to the whole thing. However, we did get a kick out of Jalen's reaction from the bench - he certainly knew to stay where he was.

I listened to Barkley at halftime of the Bulls game, and he's just contradicting himself. Nobody knows if the other players are peacemaking or adding to the problem. Just look at Stephen Jackson during the brawl. There was no defense for his actions that night. At least Artest was directly provoked - SJax was just looking for a chance to beat someone up.

How do you know what Amare's and Boris's intents were? Best to stay at the bench so that we never find out.

(PS, I still think its a crock that Charlie Ward was suspended a game for allowning himself to be body-slammed by PJ Brown.)

SoupIsGood
05-15-2007, 11:49 PM
Game 6 could be an eliminaiton game.

Shade
05-15-2007, 11:56 PM
What a bunch of idiotic garbage the NBA rules system is.

Stern sucks.

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 11:58 PM
Game 6 could be an eliminaiton game.

True. I've assumed that the Spurs would win and the Suns players would all be back to force Game #7. But you're right the Suns could win and then the Spurs would be at a slight disadvantage (relative speaking in comparison to what the Knicks had to endure all those years ago.)

Shade
05-15-2007, 11:58 PM
On behalf of Rimfire, for everyone complaining about this happening during a playoff series - there isn't a single player suspended from an elimination game. Even Horry will be back for Game #7, although the two-game suspension seems harsh for as little contact as happened. He shouldn't have done it, clearly, but one game would've been sufficient.

So stick a sock in it.

10 years ago this week.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-97/05-16-97/d01sp147.htm

Everybody knows this is the rule. Harsh? Yes. Get over it. Far better players than Amare and Diaw have been suspended.

The Suns seriously overreacted to the whole thing. However, we did get a kick out of Jalen's reaction from the bench - he certainly knew to stay where he was.

I listened to Barkley at halftime of the Bulls game, and he's just contradicting himself. Nobody knows if the other players are peacemaking or adding to the problem. Just look at Stephen Jackson during the brawl. There was no defense for his actions that night. At least Artest was directly provoked - SJax was just looking for a chance to beat someone up.

How do you know what Amare's and Boris's intents were? Best to stay at the bench so that we never find out.

(PS, I still think its a crock that Charlie Ward was suspended a game for allowning himself to be body-slammed by PJ Brown.)

Who cares what Amare's and Diaw's intentions were? The bottom line is, they got suspended for doing NOTHING.

The Spurs instigated an incident, and it led to them gaining an extremely unfair advantage.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 12:02 AM
That's not true, Shade, and you know it.

They got suspended for breaking a rule that's been on the books for more than a decade and has been enforced strictly throughout that time.

Let's go back to 1997 again. The fight happened in front of the Heat's bench.

Patrick Ewing stepped on to the playing court IN FRONT OF HIS OWN BENCH and that was enough to get suspended. He was 80 feet from the fight. Amare in particular was running right at the fight. If you want to make a case for Diaw that's fine, I don't care either way.

A rule is a rule, and they did break it.

Intent doesn't matter. The NBA is very serious that it doesn't want this type of crap to escalate so the players need to stay back at their benches or they'll get to watch the next game on television.

We don't have to look much further than our own SJax to find where a player (this time it was a player that was on the court) worked so hard to escalate a situation that was otherwise under control before all Hell broke loose in the Palace.

The idea of letting NBA players assume the role of "peacemaker" in this situation is preposterous.

Shade
05-16-2007, 12:08 AM
The rule is stupid. It should not exist. And now, a fantastic series is likely to be ruined by it.

I don't care about how this rule has been enforced in the past, because like I said, the rule should never have been instituted in the first place. So, everytime the rule is improperly abused like this, I'm going to be pissed off about it.

The precedent that this sets? Send in your benchwarmers to provoke an incident. This rule encourages dirty play.

Rules are meant to be a guideline. There is ALWAYS a gray area that has to be considered.

I swear, there is just no common sense in the world anymore.

Big Smooth
05-16-2007, 12:36 AM
What about Duncan, when he went onto the court after the JJ incident? He should be suspended also. I agree with Steve Kerr.

I don't get why people are insisting Duncan should have been suspended too. I just watched the footage of this "incident" on youtube and it is nothing. Yes, he stepped on the court. But there was no fight or altercation going on. The guys involved in the undercut didn't confront each other, they just got back up and went there separate ways.

Big Smooth
05-16-2007, 12:38 AM
The rule is stupid. It should not exist. And now, a fantastic series is likely to be ruined by it.

I don't care about how this rule has been enforced in the past, because like I said, the rule should never have been instituted in the first place. So, everytime the rule is improperly abused like this, I'm going to be pissed off about it.

The precedent that this sets? Send in your benchwarmers to provoke an incident. This rule encourages dirty play.

Rules are meant to be a guideline. There is ALWAYS a gray area that has to be considered.

I swear, there is just no common sense in the world anymore.

With all due respect, you NEVER like anything the refs do and that is a fact. :D

This rule has been executed with anal precision by the league since it's inception. I'm with indygeezer on this one, if the Suns guys got away with that I'd have been ticked because the Pacers sure as hell never got any benefit of the doubt on this rule. Let alone much media outrage that I can recall.

Arcadian
05-16-2007, 01:54 AM
For those who want the rule changed what should it be changed to?

It has to be something that is clear cut and easy identifiable. You can't just say these player shouldn't be suspended because they are nice guys. All the players know what the rule is. There is no excuse. You have to stay at the bench.

Trader Joe
05-16-2007, 02:02 AM
For those who want the rule changed what should it be changed to?

It has to be something that is clear cut and easy identifiable. You can't just say these player shouldn't be suspended because they are nice guys. All the players know what the rule is. There is no excuse. You have to stay at the bench.

Any player leaving their team's bench area with intent to exacerbate an on court altercation will be subject to suspension upon review by the NBA's commisioner.

Arcadian
05-16-2007, 02:13 AM
How do you tell intent? Let Stu decide? I think the fewer decisions Stu has to make the better we are off. Interpreting intention is one of the reasons I don't like the flagerant fouls.

I honestly believe in a situation like this the fairest way to do it is to have a zero tolerance policy that every one knows where they can step and enforce it consistantly.

DisplacedKnick
05-16-2007, 08:11 AM
On behalf of Rimfire, for everyone complaining about this happening during a playoff series - there isn't a single player suspended from an elimination game. Even Horry will be back for Game #7, although the two-game suspension seems harsh for as little contact as happened. He shouldn't have done it, clearly, but one game would've been sufficient.

So stick a sock in it.

10 years ago this week.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-97/05-16-97/d01sp147.htm


What sucked for us was that we had so many players DQ'd that we were missing starters for both games. Still almost pulled out game 6 but got rolled in game 7. Been better if we could have just lost the entire team for game 6 and been whole back in Miami. But that would have violated a rule.

And what really sucks is that may have been our best shot at a championship. The Bulls won 70 games that year but split with us, 2-2 with every game down to the wire and both teams winning on the road court. Not saying we would have won - history's against that - but we sure had a shot.

It's a stupid rule but our coaches should have known it and tackled players who started to wander - even Patrick who took about 3 ambling steps away from the bench and just looked at what was going on. It sucked - and we had nobody to blame but us.

I do find it friggin' hilarious in this thread that some of the people arguing for ignoring the rule in this case are the first ones to scream bloody murder every time a call goes against the Pacers.

Congratulations on finding the way to fairness and equity in sports - selective rules enforcement. Maybe you should just let ESPN decide which rules to follow?

Unclebuck
05-16-2007, 08:27 AM
Any player leaving their team's bench area with intent to exacerbate an on court altercation will be subject to suspension upon review by the NBA's commisioner.

How could we possibly know someones intent.

Right now the rule is simple and easy to administer. If a player leaves the bench area during an altercation - he will get suspended for the next game. Simple

King Tuts Tomb
05-16-2007, 09:46 AM
As Pacers fans most of us understand the rule and know why it's so important, even if it has hurt us almost as bad as any team.

What's shocking is the amount of NBA-ignorant Suns fans I've seen on the internet who are raging at this and didn't even know the rule existed in the first place. It's a weird consequence of the influx of casual fans brought in by the Suns who don't really know anything about the NBA.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 10:17 AM
And Barkley (much as I love him) is running his mouth with the absolute wrong story.

The rule serves an important purpose.

Indy0731, by the time a player's "intent" is revealed, its too late. There are eight other players on the court, and three referees, and they are the ones responsible for getting the situation under control. Now yes, we watched three officials who couldn't get Stephen Jackson and Ben Wallace under control fast enough and all Hell broke loose as that situation dragged on far longer than it needed to. But imagine how much worse it would've been if the benches cleared when the situation first began.

The NBA can't have players leaving the bench to escalate an altercation, period. There is nothing wrong with that rule at all.

Seed
05-16-2007, 10:51 AM
Big Shot Rob hits again.

loborick
05-16-2007, 01:14 PM
Ok, so Baron Davis and clock Fisher in the head with his elbow, and NOT get suspended, but you think Amare should be suspended for stepping on the court? Why are flagrant fouls subject to the league's 'judgment' while stepping over a line in a given situation is not? Yeah, so it's a rule, but it's still an injustice, there's no question about it.

You make a great point. The flagrant foul and stepping on the court rule both need to be looked at in the off season. But the rule is the rule now. Although I despise the Spurs and am pissed about the suspensions, it is the rule.

Shade
05-16-2007, 01:16 PM
There shouldn't be any penalty assessed to a player for leaving the bench, unless they do something to escalate the situation.

The NBA needs to use some common sense here. Like Barkley has said, for a lot of people, the first instinct is to either see what's going on, and/or try to defuse the situation.

It's really no different than if players who are already on the floor intervene when there's an altercation. You don't know a player's intentions then, either.

And for those who are championing the rules and saying that they all need to be consistent; where's the outrage over neither Jason Richardson nor Baron Davis getting suspensions? Horry didn't do anything worse to Nash than Baron did to Fisher.

grace
05-16-2007, 01:25 PM
There shouldn't be any penalty assessed to a player for leaving the bench, unless they do something to escalate the situation

Just how are you going to define escalating the situation. You can look cross eyed at Latrell Spreewell and he thinks you need to be punched in the face. You can say "yo mama" to Kobe and he'll take a swing. If you're sitting on the bench where you're supposed to be then none of that is likely to happen.

Since86
05-16-2007, 01:32 PM
Just how are you going to define escalating the situation. You can look cross eyed at Latrell Spreewell and he thinks you need to be punched in the face. You can say "yo mama" to Kobe and he'll take a swing. If you're sitting on the bench where you're supposed to be then none of that is likely to happen.

So Raja Bell can come up and try to get to Horry?

It doesn't make any sense. If you're on the floor, you have free reign to get into the scuffle, to either escalate or to defuse it. No one knows their intentions when they run over there either, but they still can get in the scrum.


Lobby heavy fines and suspensions for fighting and allow people to come in and defuse the situation. I think you'll find that most players would rather get people apart than throw down. Amare and Boris didn't touch anyone or start yelling at any of the Spurs. I don't even think Amare took his hands off the towel wrapped around his neck, did he?

It's a stupid rule, always has been and always will be.

Arcadian
05-16-2007, 02:12 PM
And for those who are championing the rules and saying that they all need to be consistent; where's the outrage over neither Jason Richardson nor Baron Davis getting suspensions? Horry didn't do anything worse to Nash than Baron did to Fisher.

That's the thing those rulings were made on judging the player intent. Why would you want to make it anymore murky. Players know that they need to stay on the bench when a fight breaks out. It's pretty simple.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 02:24 PM
I think Raja Bell should've gotten a game.

I hate it when players on the court escalate the situations, too.

The rule is this: Its very, very hard to control the reactions of any of the playes, whether on the court or not. Its impossible to have a rule to prevent what Raja Bell did. At least its possible to ensure that the bench players don't do what Raja did.

If this rule is eliminated the NBA is taking a step backwards in its efforts to curtail oncourt violence.

Since86
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
Take a step backwards, like not suspending Tim for getting off the bench during the second quarter?

The league defended its decision not to punish him, because there was no altercation. He was off the bench, and on to the floor before one could even start. If one had started, he would have been in violation, but because others kept their head, he came off scot free.

You can't have it one way and not the other. He left the bench because of the possibility of Elson reacting. He should have been punished too.

Punishing those who don't even partake does nothing to stop on court violence. Punishing those who do fight with stiffer penalties would be much more effective.

Jermaniac
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
I remember when Ron got suspended for walking 10 feet off the bench during the JO and the fat boy scuffle. While Fred Hoiberg ran off the bench almost to half court when KG and Antony Peeler got in a fight, and he didnt even get fined.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 02:36 PM
Take a step backwards, like not suspending Tim for getting off the bench during the second quarter?

The league defended its decision not to punish him, because there was no altercation. He was off the bench, and on to the floor before one could even start. If one had started, he would have been in violation, but because others kept their head, he came off scot free.

You can't have it one way and not the other. He left the bench because of the possibility of Elson reacting. He should have been punished too.

Punishing those who don't even partake does nothing to stop on court violence. Punishing those who do fight with stiffer penalties would be much more effective.


NBA Rule 12-A-VII-c, "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.
The key phrase is "During an altercation."

There was a blog somewhere else today asking why players aren't suspended when they stand up and cheer during a game.

This rule is about preventing a fight between two players from escalating into something bigger.

If there is no altercation, the rule is not violated.

I guess Tim got lucky. That's all.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-16-2007, 03:58 PM
I agree with Sh4d3 and Jay (and whoever else) that suggested that players already on the court who rush to the 'scene' of an altercation - they should be suspended also. Just cause they're already on the court, does that make them any less guilty than a bench player stepping onto the court? Anyone involved in any sort of 'incident' should be suspended and fined. (That is, if you think the current law of crossing over the line onto the court is just, and should remain black and white with no review).

Oh, and that might as well extend to all and any team staff and/or coaches...

Since86
05-16-2007, 04:43 PM
So now we're advocating a suspension for anyone who becomes part of the crowd during an altercation?

If you go in to escalate it, then yes there should be a punishment. If you go in and start being a peacekeeper, then you shouldn't have to worry about being suspended and/or fined.

You can debate all you want about not knowing a players intent when leaving the bench, but I disagree fully.

You watch Stephen Jackson while Ron was laying on the scorer's table and tell me what his intent was. It's pretty obvious.

Watch the way Raja Bell reacted during the scuffle and tell me his intent wasn't to go after Horry. Rob knew Raja's intention the whole time he was walking towards him, because as soon as he got there he put his arms up and shoved him away. Then watch Marion go in and see his intent.

Amare didn't run over there like some have suggested, he walked about 5 steps. Never shouted, never pointed, never pulled out his jersey and put his fists up. He was no threat to the situation.

Who freaking cares if he got 10ft away from the bench? He didn't do anything to threaten anyones wellbeing, and that should be the bottom line.

Change the rule and punish those who furthered the situation, I.E. Raja Bell. Don't ruin a great series because of someone took 2-3 steps too far.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 04:56 PM
Change the rule and you'll have a bench-clearing fight again in no time, and you'll have to put the rule back in place.

The beauty of this rule is that intent doesn't matter - if you aren't in the game at the time then stay out of it. It didn't involve you anyway.

The DEN/NYK incident this season - how many guys were suspended for leaving the bench? (I don't remember but it wasn't many).

The Dale Davis - Michael Smith fight shortly after the new rule - the Pacers had so many suspensions (as did the Kings) that it took several games before all the players were back.

Since86
05-16-2007, 05:04 PM
I doubt there will be a reason for a bench clearing fight.

The game, and the style which it's played at is very different than it was 10yrs ago. There aren't many DD/Charles Oakley types left, if any.

I can't think of any team that has that "enforcer." Maybe Ben Wallace is the closest thing to it, but he doesn't scream phsyical play by any means.

Ron's shoving foul that started the brawl was a common foul during the mid-90s. Rik Smits makes some of these guys look soft.

Arcadian
05-16-2007, 05:15 PM
The reason there haven't been bench clearing fights is because of the rule. Not because the teams have gone coft or players have mellowed.

Shade
05-16-2007, 05:38 PM
I think Raja Bell should've gotten a game.

I hate it when players on the court escalate the situations, too.

The rule is this: Its very, very hard to control the reactions of any of the playes, whether on the court or not. Its impossible to have a rule to prevent what Raja Bell did. At least its possible to ensure that the bench players don't do what Raja did.

If this rule is eliminated the NBA is taking a step backwards in its efforts to curtail oncourt violence.

Maybe to prevent it, but not to enforce it:

Robert Horry - suspended one game for instigating an altercation
Raja Bell - suspended one game for escalating an altercation

It's just that simple.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 05:50 PM
I looked it up - Nene and Jerome James each got a game for leaving the bench.

The Pacers and Kings - with no history of animoisty whatsoever - cleared both benches.

The only reason these guys need for a bench-clearing fight is a hard-foul and years of misguided coaching that de-facto tells them that backing-up their teammate is a sign of manlihood. So we get this false definition of "teammate" like the one SJax throws around defending his actions in Detroit.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 05:53 PM
Maybe to prevent it, but not to enforce it:

Robert Horry - suspended one game for instigating an altercation
Raja Bell - suspended one game for escalating an altercation

It's just that simple.

Again, Jalen Rose jumped up with a "whoa - look at that" look on his face and then made sure he didn't move.

Its a young-player mistake, just like the young-player mistake that Jalen made nine years ago.

But just because a young player made a mistake does not make the rule bad.

Shade
05-16-2007, 06:05 PM
Again, Jalen Rose jumped up with a "whoa - look at that" look on his face and then made sure he didn't move.

Its a young-player mistake, just like the young-player mistake that Jalen made nine years ago.

But just because a young player made a mistake does not make the rule bad.

All you have to do is replace the current rule with one that severely penalizes a player, either on the bench or on the floor, for instigating or escalating an incident, with consideration for steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

Hell, if I'm going to get a game anyway for leaving the bench, I may as well go onto the floor and start some ****, with the way the rule is currently interpreted.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 06:17 PM
That's not true - I can't imagine how severe the penalty would be if a player came off the bench and really escalated the problem.

The rule states

Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.

Just because nobody has left the bench an escalated a fight in years doesn't mean that player would receive the same penalty as somebody who leaves the bench area. Especially in the post-Palace brawl world that the NBA operates in.

Notice: the rule is working.

ABADays
05-16-2007, 06:18 PM
All you have to do is replace the current rule with one that severely penalizes a player, either on the bench or on the floor, for instigating or escalating an incident, with consideration for steeper penalties for repeat offenders.

Hell, if I'm going to get a game anyway for leaving the bench, I may as well go onto the floor and start some ****, with the way the rule is currently interpreted.

And your interpretation would be correct. Of course, that could result in multiple games.

Shade
05-16-2007, 07:13 PM
That's not true - I can't imagine how severe the penalty would be if a player came off the bench and really escalated the problem.

The rule states

Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000.

Just because nobody has left the bench an escalated a fight in years doesn't mean that player would receive the same penalty as somebody who leaves the bench area. Especially in the post-Palace brawl world that the NBA operates in.

Notice: the rule is working.

A player on the floor is just as likely as a player on the bench to escalate an incident. Maybe even more likely, because players on the floor are already running on adrenaline and emotion from playing the game.

So, you're okay with living in a black-and-white world? Because the current rule leaves no room for a gray area, regardless of the fact that a gray area exists.

Sorry, Jay, but that's just not realistic. And neither is this rule.

The NBA has gotten to a point where they're penalizing players for being human and having human reactions. It is the very definition of a dictatorship.

The rule is most certainly not working. The Spurs resorted to dirty play, and two important Suns fans that did nothing more than stand up and walk a few feet get penalized. The Spurs win; the Suns, and fans of fair play, lose.

Shade
05-16-2007, 07:18 PM
And your interpretation would be correct. Of course, that could result in multiple games.

Perhaps. But, at the very least, I'm still going to stay on the floor and head toward the altercation.

The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the players foolishly believe that, if they immediately return to the bench, they can avoid punishment. With all the press this is getting, it is obvious that you're going to be suspended if you leave the bench, regardless of the explanation. Therefore, you may as well stay on the floor and get involved.

Once this clicks in players' heads, this rule will be pretty much meaningless.

Btw, if a player REALLY wants to fight, they're going to go on the floor and do it anyway. This rule is not going to stop them, just as it didn't during the Brawl. All that ends up happening is the would-be peacemakers remain on the bench while everyone else rushes the floor and fights.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 07:33 PM
I didn't see a bench-clearing situation the other night.

The rule worked.

You (and Charles Barkely) are trying to make the rule something its not. And yes, Raja Bell should've been suspended longer than Amare and Boris. But that's completely independent of this rule. I have no problem with this rule being enforced as a black-and-white rule because it is working to prevent an altercation between two players from developing into a bench-clearing brawl that we saw all too often prior to about 1993ish.

This isn't anything new. Ron only wandered a few feet onto the court and didn't do anything. Ditto for Patrick Ewing. Jalen wasn't close to actually participating in the altercation. They were all suspended. The media firestorm the first time this happened in a playoff game (ten years ago this week, Miami vs. Knicks) was absolutely huge relative to this time around. The NBA has done an outstanding job of applying this rule consistently for almost fifteen years. And the NBA clearly is not a model of consistency for applying any other rules so for once they should be commended for this. If the players actually think that they can return to the bench without punishment then they're not paying attention (and they should start paying attention now.)

Shade
05-16-2007, 07:53 PM
Jay, I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I refuse to commend the NBA for being consistent in implementing a flawed rule.

Btw:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070516&sportCat=nba

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 08:03 PM
Ah, you took your Knicks/Nuggets comment out while I was quoting it.

How many players left the bench during the period between when the Artest-Wallace altercation started and when the cup was thrown. Because the NBA admitted that it wouldn't penalize the players that left the bench once that started because that was utterly unrealistic. I know Reggie was suspended but he was in street clothes. Ah, looked it up... Chauncey, Elden Campbell, Coleman. Only four players our of 14+ left the bench for that one so I'd say the rule generally worked then too.

Now, Stephen Jackson should've been suspended for all long as Artest for escalating the situation, but I've said that since November 20, 2004.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 08:04 PM
I've read Bill's column. I did agree 100% with the portion on flopping, by the way.

Elgin56
05-16-2007, 08:15 PM
I really truly believe that Horry was told to put the hard foul on Nash and near the Suns bench to see if they could get players off the bench to get them suspended for a game. Horry is not known for this type of mauling of a player and it is out of character for him to react in the way he did.

There is where the rule is a real problem, baiting players to come off the bench is not a stretch when the stakes are this high. Players are wired to react to bang bang situations and too expect them not to is iNSANE.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-16-2007, 08:49 PM
I'm seriously thinking of suspending myself tonight. Adolf Stern (and his beatch Stu) makes me want to puke my guts out.

If the Spurs win this series, I won't be watching any more Spurs games this post season. (especially if they get to the Finals. The last thing I want to see is another Spurs Pistons Finals)

---
So we have a name for Bob - Cheap Shot Bob.
What about Bowen? We need a good nick for him...

---

oh, and is anyone else simply done with Popovich? His post game interviews are crude, especially when they lose. He's a poor loser.

---

Oh and this:
"Commissioner David Stern canceled his scheduled trip to Phoenix for Game 5. He plans to go to Cleveland instead."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/2030AP_BKN_Spurs_Suns_Sunspensions.html


Chicken *** woos boy. Had to run away like a little school kid.

Shade
05-16-2007, 09:19 PM
Ah, you took your Knicks/Nuggets comment out while I was quoting it.

How many players left the bench during the period between when the Artest-Wallace altercation started and when the cup was thrown. Because the NBA admitted that it wouldn't penalize the players that left the bench once that started because that was utterly unrealistic. I know Reggie was suspended but he was in street clothes. Ah, looked it up... Chauncey, Elden Campbell, Coleman. Only four players our of 14+ left the bench for that one so I'd say the rule generally worked then too.

Now, Stephen Jackson should've been suspended for all long as Artest for escalating the situation, but I've said that since November 20, 2004.

I wanted to do some research on the Denver/NY brawl before referencing it, because my memory of it is not perfect.

The only reason more players (or, should I say, Pacers) weren't suspended after the brawl is because there would have been no players left. No players left = forfeit = no $$$ generated for the NBA.

The decisions made concerning the brawl were horribly lopsided anyway.

I've already stated numerous reasons why the rule is horribly flawed, as you've done to the contrary. Though I can see your point, I just don't agree with it at all. Expecting humans to act like robots is a recipe for disaster.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-16-2007, 09:20 PM
I liked this guy's article on the topic...

http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/05/16/wednesday/index.html

Shade
05-16-2007, 09:30 PM
I liked this guy's article on the topic...

http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/05/16/wednesday/index.html


Bell, who actually helped escalate the situation, which is what the NBA's rules are designed to prevent, wasn't punished.


What this shortsighted policy does is create incentive for teams to do exactly what Horry did Monday night. Why would you not send an end-of-the-bench guy onto the floor during the playoffs to commit an act of violence when the other team's best player or, even better, players are on the bench getting a rest?

If any of those guys have the natural, in-the-moment, adrenaline-charged, human reaction of moving toward their battered teammate to help, they're gone for the next game. Your guy gets tossed too, but that's a hell of a trade. Just ask the Spurs. If the other team doesn't take the bait, well, at least you tried, and all you lose is an end-of-the-bench guy for a game.

The rule also creates an incentive for brawls to escalate. Once a player has taken a step or two from the bench toward an altercation, there's no reason to stop short of joining in. You're already suspended, pal. Might as well keep going and get a few licks in. It's idiotic.

QFET


It also can't be lost on teams that when the Suns didn't escalate the incident when Bowen kicked Nash, Bowen didn't get suspended. When they did escalate the Horry incident -- Bell going nose to nose with Horry, even ignoring the bogus "leaving the bench area" charge -- Horry did get suspended.

This is another thing. What, exactly, constitutes an "altercation?" Apparently, it's only considered an "altercation" if someone escalates it. If a player takes a cheap shot at another player, and there's no reaction, nothing happens to the instigator except, perhaps, a flagrant foul call. See the Davis/Fisher, Richardson/Okur, Bowen/Amare, etc. situations.

That's absolutely insane.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 09:58 PM
The only reason more players (or, should I say, Pacers) weren't suspended after the brawl is because there would have been no players left. No players left = forfeit = no $$$ generated for the NBA.

no no no no no no...

You have to dress eight. Re-read what Rimfire said about the 97 playoffs. Its alphabetical, so those guys serve, then they come back and the next four guys sit out. That's why Starks missed Game #7.

Although after the Houston series, one could argue that not having Starks for a Game #7 might have been a good thing....

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 09:59 PM
I've already stated numerous reasons why the rule is horribly flawed, as you've done to the contrary. Though I can see your point, I just don't agree with it at all. Expecting humans to act like robots is a recipe for disaster.

And allowing a free-for-all bench clearing melee is a recipe for disaster.

Why can't we just have :peace:?

:hippie:

SycamoreKen
05-17-2007, 12:02 AM
I find this thread interesting. After seeing the play live and then replayed 10 million times, I agree that Diaw probably had the best arguement of the 3 of them not to be suspended. He really never went past where the coaches were.

Amare, on the other hand, had to be jumped in front of by coaches and pushed back to the bench area. He did not just pull a Jalen and step on and off the court. He looked like he was on his way to the incident and made no move to turn around and go back on his own. That was an even dumber decision than commiting that stupid foul on Duncan to start the 4th the game before.

In any case, Horry and the Spurs did not cause either of these guys to do what they did. They are responsible for their own actions and are being punished for breaking the rules. I'm not really surprised by this unwillingness to hold Amare and Diaw accountable for their actions, for that seems to be the way we live today. Blame Stern, the Spurs, and maybe even the Coyote for it, but not the two guys that broke the rule.

What I find funniest of all about this is, had this been one of our guys bumping Billups into the table and Wallace and Prince comming off the bench then we would be screaming bloody murder if they didn't get suspended. Stern would have shown his hatred of the Pacers again, and most of you complaining about the rule would be fighting for it to be enforced.

I'd find it very funny if the Suns win tonight and then blow the next 2 to win the series with Amare. Who would they blame then? Oh wait, I'm sure they would have someone besides the guys in the mirror, so why even wonder.

Naptown_Seth
05-17-2007, 02:57 AM
You change the rule before the next season, not the next game...or half...or timeout...or
Um, when did they announced the change in the first round playoff format from 5 games to 7?

Yep, mid-season.

As I said elsewhere they did bend the rules for the brawl. Not every player was suspended, not even close. How many games did Fred Jones get for being in the stands?

Stern said at the time that clearly there were gray areas, which ticked me off because he was so B&W with Ron's suspension vs Boston, when he (and Rose) should have been rewarded for realizing the law and trying to abide by it pretty quickly. But that's another rant.


I think it was stupid to suspend Amare and that Stern has totally lost sight of what he's trying to accomplish. Dogmatic obedience to laws is what lets bad laws stay in place.

Air23
05-30-2007, 07:15 AM
I think this is a great rule. There is no reason for any bench player to feel compelled to step onto the court here. The four guys on the court don't get suspended if they are acting like peace makers.

So the "protect your teammate" line is nonsense.


You must never have played team sports.

Air23
05-30-2007, 07:19 AM
Take a step backwards, like not suspending Tim for getting off the bench during the second quarter?

The league defended its decision not to punish him, because there was no altercation. He was off the bench, and on to the floor before one could even start. If one had started, he would have been in violation, but because others kept their head, he came off scot free.

You can't have it one way and not the other. He left the bench because of the possibility of Elson reacting. He should have been punished too.

Punishing those who don't even partake does nothing to stop on court violence. Punishing those who do fight with stiffer penalties would be much more effective.


Bingo.