PDA

View Full Version : Peter Vescey says J.O threw security over the scorers table



Unclebuck
11-23-2004, 03:58 PM
J.O's suspension does not seem right. here is a possible explanation

http://www.nypost.com/sports/32117.htm

WHY DAVID WAS SO STERN





November 23, 2004 --
UNLIKE David Stern, who's clever enough to sift through and digest the countless number of confrontations, machinations, nuances and interrogations relevant to the scariest NBA scene he confesses to have ever witnessed and impart a groundbreaking decision within 36 hours, my investigation regarding Friday night's sickening fight isn't nearly completed.

In fact, the momentous majority-of-one historic ruling by the commissioner only serves to extend, expand and complicate it.

What's a pharaoh to do? Extreme wrongdoing dictates extreme measures. I understand that. Public disgrace demands public floggings, acts of contrition and prompt acceptance of responsibility (much obliged, David) in the face of public outrage and media condemnation.

Justice must be done. And it needed to be done rapidly, before the lawsuits (Ron Artest was served with one civil complaint yesterday, I'm informed) and indictments (the Oakland County, Mich., prosecutor would prefer to let things die in light of only two minor injuries, say sources) had a chance to pile up. I understand that, too.

At the same time, the league's image must also be resuscitated. Advertisers and audiences must be reassured of the product and their safety. The excruciating collision between perception and reality must be untangled unfalteringly and conditions upgraded to ensure they never meet head-on again.

If that means forcefully turning against the players and feeding an extra Pacer or two to mass hysteria, who's about to argue Stern's position in this Screech Owl climate other than the Players' Association and its union members?

If that means an entire organization must pay through the gills for the sins of several of its favorite sons that's the price, it appears, for degrading the whole league and subjecting its constituency to derision and denouncement.

Almost everybody agrees Artest deserves most of what he got (does his season ban include the playoffs?).

Almost everyone also agrees Stephen Jackson earned the wrath of Stern by trailing Artest into the crowd.



Still, a 30-game sentence seems mighty merciless. Last time a crazed player (Vernon Maxwell) veered into the stands to accost a fanatic he got 10 games. Tripling that amount for a guy not known as a desperado or having repeated run-ins with authority makes me suspect Stern caved in to his own emotions as well as public pressure.

Jermaine O'Neal's 25-game punishment, on the surface, is just plain preposterous. Obviously, I don't come close to getting this one. Why such a ruthless stance for somebody who didn't go into the stands, though we're told he tried, for what purpose nobody will ever know? What was taken into account?

Was O'Neal suspended for nailing that one deranged stump who came onto the court with his homey to confront (not comfort) Artest and paid the appropriate price? First compliments of Artest, then Anthony Johnson, who slipped and fell, and finally from O'Neal, who came across the court to protect Johnson and slid (he might've killed the guy otherwise) just before delivering the knockout punch?

If players are stringently forbidden to break into the stands (thank goodness this was Auburn Hills and not Joe Louis Arena; Artest and Jackson would've been swallowed up, never to be seen again), it has to work both ways. Once the fans come on the court they're fair game to be beaten to a pulp by players or security. Lord knows nothing happens to them (probation for everybody) once the legal system springs into inaction.

Who knows their insanity quotient? Who knows what they might be packing? O'Neal, whose account and description of events remain unheard of the league on advice of counsel, had every right to coldcock the miscreant, it says here. He should've been commended, not suspended.

Why is it the other way around? More significant, how come Johnson got five games for hitting the miscreant and O'Neal got 25 for the same act?

From what I can gather, it's all of the above; trying to get into the stands and fast-breaking across court to hit the guy as he was getting up. In addition, he cuffed a red-shirted security guard who was trying to restrain him and tossed him over the scorer's table.

How, pray tell, was O'Neal supposed to know that some guy wearing a red (or blue) shirt is security? Especially in his frenetic state of mind when people and things are coming at him from all angles? He's not; that's the point. That's why such free-for-all (with fans and foe) are so inhumanly dangerous.

That's why they must not happen again. That's why Stern's verdicts were so ruthlessly unsympathetic. That's why his message is so clear: Take part in a barroom-like brawl and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^you get the group surcharge, not the group discount.

sweabs
11-23-2004, 04:05 PM
More significant, how come Johnson got five games for hitting the miscreant and O'Neal got 25 for the same act?

I think this is perhaps one of the most important questions that needs to be addressed. As was stated in another thread, Stern's assumption that Jermaine was wanting to smoke people in the stands does not hold up well, and is unfair to say the least.

You can make assumptions all day long. Rip Hamilton wanted to fight in the stands? Ben Wallace wanted to beat the living ***** out of Ron on the court?

mmxx
11-23-2004, 10:53 PM
J.O's suspension does not seem right. here is a possible explanation

http://www.nypost.com/sports/32117.htm

WHY DAVID WAS SO STERN

In addition, he cuffed a red-shirted security guard who was trying to restrain him and tossed him over the scorer's table.

How, pray tell, was O'Neal supposed to know that some guy wearing a red (or blue) shirt is security? Especially in his frenetic state of mind when people and things are coming at him from all angles? He's not; that's the point. That's why such free-for-all (with fans and foe) are so inhumanly dangerous.



Or, some security guards at that moment were not acting like they were trying to protect the Pacers, they could be protecting the fans on the court AGAINST the Pacers specifically Ron.

That was what frightened JO and Ron and whichever Pacer who sensed that.

It was reported a security guard was pointing pepperspray at Ron when he was on the court.

My bet is some fans on the court was shouting "he's crazy" then

Pacers/Simons should appeal for JO, but only for him.

ChicagoJ
11-23-2004, 11:47 PM
IMO, Stern left JO's punishment open for negotiation. This is where he's willing to compromise - Ron and SJax could've easily received and justifiable received worse punishments so there's almost no point in appealing those.

Has anyone started the FREE JERMAINE O'NEAL website/ campaign?

ChicagoJ
11-23-2004, 11:51 PM
It was reported a security guard was pointing pepperspray at Ron when he was on the court.

ESPN has shown this part of the incident repeatedly - this is when Chuck Person comes rushing in to convince them that he's got Ron under control and that he'll escort him out of the playing area. Then Chuck and Reggie cover up Ron and head into the firestorm together. I actually like that image of togetherness. Two of the greatest Pacers players in history giving Ron a hands-on illustration of what it actually means to be a teammate.

Unclebuck
11-23-2004, 11:54 PM
I think the Pacers and the NBA PA should try to work something out with Stern. We'll drop all appeals, if you knock 10 games off J.O's suspension

Outlaw
11-24-2004, 12:03 AM
I did not realize there was a security person around close enough to throw.:laugh:

Hoop
11-24-2004, 12:10 AM
It seems Stern is only concerned with punishing the players that effect the Pacers future the most. JO gets 20 more games for the same thing Johnson did, who's more important to the team, duh. Harrison may have hit someone too, who's more important to the team, duh. Stern has it in for the Pacers IMO.