PDA

View Full Version : Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games



PacersRule1
12-22-2004, 11:21 AM
Just heard on ESPN Radio that Kaplan ruled that JO's suspension should be 15 games. Jackson and Artest's do not change.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:23 AM
It's true; ESPNews has it in the bottom right corner of their screen right now.

"Jermaine O'Neal's Susp Cut to 15 Gms"

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 11:23 AM
NO CHANGE FOR ARTEST?

This league sucks - I'm done with the NBA.

Roy Munson
12-22-2004, 11:26 AM
So when will the 15 games be done?

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:26 AM
Tonight will be his 15th game out from suspension. If the league doesn't smack this down, Jermaine's first game back will be Saturday vs. Detroit.

indygeezer
12-22-2004, 11:27 AM
I do not see that on the ESPN website.

But I just turned on the radio.




Ooops, just heard it on radio...JO eligible for Saturday.....hmmm wonder if Der Furher had some input for ratings purposes?

PacersRule1
12-22-2004, 11:28 AM
JO's 15 games will have been served after tonight's game.

Shade
12-22-2004, 11:28 AM
This reeks of a compromise. Stern won't challenge this, since Jax and Artest will serve their full suspensions, and JO comes back for the Christmas Day game so the league gets their ratings.

Basically, we sold out Ron to get JO back early. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 11:31 AM
This reeks of a compromise. Stern won't challenge this, since Jax and Artest will serve their full suspensions, and JO comes back for the Christmas Day game so the league gets their ratings.

Basically, we sold out Ron to get JO back early. I'm not sure how I feel about this.


Not only did we sell out Ron, we sold out all hopes at a Title. Our year is officially over. Say hello to a 4 seed and a 2nd round exit.

Coach
12-22-2004, 11:32 AM
:dance: :cheers: :applaud: :pepper: :champagne :mango: :pineapple :cucumber: :apple: Very happy to get JO back!!!!!

I don't get it. Did they say that nothing would change on Ron and SJax. This may be the first of three changes. Maybe JO's was the easiest to deal with so they did it first considering his was going to be up soon. Now they may try to get Artest or SJax changed next.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:33 AM
I feel that the way the NBPA and the Pacers viewed this, was that the odds of getting Ron or Jackson's suspensions reduced was so slim, and even JO's to an extent, that they had to choose between: Fight equally for all 3 and lose, or focus on JO and at least get him back. I think getting JO back now is better than nothing. And I feel OK about it because I don't believe we were going to get the others back sooner. If you don't agree with that, then you probably do feel like we sold out.

Anthem
12-22-2004, 11:34 AM
I don't think it's that bad, but I can't see how we can win it all this year.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:35 AM
Speculations and predictions aside, I just want to echo WELCOME BACK JERMAINE! :) I just hope this 10 game reduction sticks.

drewdawg
12-22-2004, 11:37 AM
NEW YORK -- Jermaine O'Neal won a 10-game reduction Wednesday in his suspension for fighting with fans during the Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons brawl, but an arbitrator upheld NBA commissioner David Stern's bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players.

Arbitrator Roger Kaplan's decision makes O'Neal eligible to return Saturday, when the Pacers host the Pistons in the teams' first matchup since one of the most violent melees in NBA history.

It was unclear whether the NBA would recognize Kaplan's authority to intervene. The league refused to participate in the arbitration hearing Kaplan conducted Dec. 9.

The NBA had no immediate comment.

Ultimate Frisbee
12-22-2004, 11:42 AM
Booo... SJax deserved more and Ron deserved less....

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 11:44 AM
Well, 10 games is better than nothing but that is not much of a reduction of the biggest suspensions in history.

Since we do not have any choice, I guess we will have to live with it.

:mad: :( :cry: :confused:

beast23
12-22-2004, 11:44 AM
"The Pacers" didn't sell out anything.

They weren't looking for a compromise, they were looking to get all of their players back as soon as possible. More than likely, the suspensions for the three players had overlapping points that were discussed, but each case was probably argued on its own merit.

I would say that the arbitrator was influenced by the fact that SJax and Artest both went into the stands, and they both had prior histories. JO did not go into the stands and had no priors.

I wish the decision would have turned out differently, but I can't say that I really disagree with it one way or the other.

There may have been a compromise made, but it had nothing to do with the Pacers. The compromise may not even have been between Kaplan and the league. It may have just been Kaplan offering what would be viewed as just by after considering all circumstances and what could be done for the players that would probably not be challenged by the league.

I don't think Stern will challenge it.

able
12-22-2004, 11:45 AM
If this is indeed the final ruling then I still see the Pacers or the Simons go the board of gouvernours, unless this is part of a shady deal.

Well one thing is for sure, lawyers will make more money out of this then the players lost and on top of that, the season for the Pacers is down the tubes.

I will withold further comment until i read the ruling of the arbitrator so I at least know what he based his decision on.

Unclebuck
12-22-2004, 11:48 AM
Although I think I made more than one prediction, one of the many I made is that Artest would be thrown under the bus in hopes of reducing J.O's, and Jax.

This is not so great

FiestyFosterFanatic
12-22-2004, 11:49 AM
I think his got reduced because he didn't go into the stands.

indygeezer
12-22-2004, 11:50 AM
To be honest the reduction coming at this time smells real fishy. I think the public will view it as the BA trying to boost ratings, unless they challenge it. And if they do, people will view it as the Commish being arbitrary. I am a bit surprised by the comments I'm hearing on Cornheisers show...seems universal that John Q. Public thinks the suspensions should have stood and that JO and Jax didn't get enough time off.

Unclebuck
12-22-2004, 11:51 AM
If Stern fights this he has a screw loose. He should call a press conference and make nice to the players union. We don't want a lockout/strike next year.

pb777
12-22-2004, 11:53 AM
One side of me is so excited to get JO back! Another is heartbroken that Ron wont be back this year. Is there any other way to attempt getting Ron's suspension reduced? Could they appeal Kaplan's decision in regards to Ron?

Coach
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
It says in article at ESPN that arbitrator upheld decision on Ron and SJax.
:(

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
If Stern fights this he has a screw loose. He should call a press conference and make nice to the players union. We don't want a lockout/strike next year.
I agree, the smartest thing Stern could do for HIMSELF is to come out and say "I'm not fighting this". It's a minor enough of a change that it still looks like he came down hard on the fight, while now he can also pretend to be :buddies:with the players union to help avoid lockout/strike later on. He can make himself look good to the other side by supporting this.

Now that I think about it, I will be surprised if Stern/NBA fights this ruling.

indygeezer
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
I don't see the season as being "down the tubes" at all. We were saying we'd get our guys back in January and instead we get one back in December. So we will still get JO and Jax back well before the PO's. Now if you are firmly convinced that we cannot win anything without RA, then you feel we are doomed. I felt we were doomed with him and should have gotten a repalcement before teh season started. So I don't see the season being any worse off than it was yesterday. Actually, IMO it is better off that it was yesterday because we may be able to get JO back earlier than thought.

able
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
Well the news mus thave learned you that the icehockey player that hit another player form beind, causing serious damage (how many games did he get?) does not face jailtime or whatever, plea nargain, community service.

The lesson?

Ron should have hit Ben in his neck then kick him in the head, less suspension, less trouble in court.

What on earth is this world coming to?

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
One side of me is so excited to get JO back! Another is heartbroken that Ron wont be back this year. Is there any other way to attempt getting Ron's suspension reduced? Could they appeal Kaplan's decision in regards to Ron?


Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Ron-Ron never plays in the NBA again.

Das Sprach Der Fuhrer...

Shade
12-22-2004, 11:55 AM
I think JO's reduction is fair, and I have no problem with Jax serving the full 30 games. I am, however, very disappointed that Ron will not be back. I think Ron should have been reduced to 60 games.

Stern is in a win-win situation now. He still hurts the Pacers big time in the long run, and gets his ratings for the Christmas Day game. Blah.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:56 AM
And as someone else said, this will be good also if Stern doesn't fight it, because with this out of the way, the Simons/Pacers can start battling on their own front for Ron and Jack while we get to enjoy Jermaine O'Neal on the floor in the meantime. Works for me. Simons might get Ron back even.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 11:59 AM
Well the news mus thave learned you that the icehockey player that hit another player form beind, causing serious damage (how many games did he get?) does not face jailtime or whatever, plea nargain, community service.

The lesson?

Ron should have hit Ben in his neck then kick him in the head, less suspension, less trouble in court.

What on earth is this world coming to?
I'm with you here. The two-faced nature of their punishments is down-right screwey.

able
12-22-2004, 11:59 AM
All big IF's Hicks, but yes, if this is not the result of a shady deal then I am pretty convinced that he Simons will appeal to the board.

If they don't then there is more to this then meets the eye

pb777
12-22-2004, 11:59 AM
the Simons/Pacers can start battling on their own front for Ron and Jack while we get to enjoy Jermaine O'Neal on the floor in the meantime. Works for me. Simons might get Ron back even.How is this possible? What can they do, what is the process?

Unclebuck
12-22-2004, 12:00 PM
I feel bad for Ron on a personal level, I hope he recovers from this is a better person and player. Pacers better not abandon him.

pb777
12-22-2004, 12:02 PM
I feel bad for Ron on a personal level, I hope he recovers from this is a better person and player. Pacers better not abandon him.:(

able
12-22-2004, 12:02 PM
How is this possible? What can they do, what is the process?

Besides obvious lawsuits, they can appeal to the board of governours of the NBA which consists of all the owners in the NBA and is the employer of Stern.

They have the right to overrule anything Stern decides. Will they do so?

Not likely, however...........

This is not only a hobby for some, and there might be a reasoning that it can happen to them to once precedent has been set.

On the other hand they might just want to screw the other guy over and keep it as it is, but it will be an interesting procedure to say the least

unstandable
12-22-2004, 12:03 PM
I think Stern has to challenge this still. Otherwise the precedent is set that outside arbitrators have jurisdiction for incidents like this as "off the court" events.

able
12-22-2004, 12:03 PM
I feel bad for Ron on a personal level, I hope he recovers from this is a better person and player. Pacers better not abandon him.

If no further appeals are filed I do not see how Ron will ever overcome this.

In fact if not a clear statement is made by the Simons or the Pacers I see Ron never coming back to the NBA.

Stryder
12-22-2004, 12:04 PM
Well the news mus thave learned you that the icehockey player that hit another player form beind, causing serious damage (how many games did he get?) does not face jailtime or whatever, plea nargain, community service.

The lesson?

Ron should have hit Ben in his neck then kick him in the head, less suspension, less trouble in court.

What on earth is this world coming to?

Both situations are independent of each other. One case is irrelevant to the other.

Different leagues, different circumstances, different sports, different scenarios.

Unclebuck
12-22-2004, 12:06 PM
Overthrow Stern !

Oh wait, sorry I got a litle carried away.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:06 PM
I think Stern has to challenge this still. Otherwise the precedent is set that outside arbitrators have jurisdiction for incidents like this as "off the court" events.
Depends on what the arbitrator says was his reasoning/justification for this. He may not be doing it on the bases of "off the court". It could just be the fact that the CBA says any punishment that costs the player more than $25,000 can be brought to an arbitrator.

And then there's what UB and I were just saying above. If for no other reason than politics, it's smart for Stern not to fight this.

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 12:07 PM
This is very disappointing - I had thought that Ron's was the most likely to get reduced - his suspension is just so damn unfair it makes me sick. The season is not over, but title hopes are in my opinion.

able
12-22-2004, 12:09 PM
This is very disappointing - I had thought that Ron's was the most likely to get reduced - his suspension is just so damn unfair it makes me sick. The season is not over, but title hopes are in my opinion.

This was "our" season, instead we now have a "let's see how far we can get" state again, dissapointing is indeed an understatement.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 12:09 PM
We have a good chance to win every night JO plays. I'm happy. I feel bad for Ron, he just never figured it out.

sixthman
12-22-2004, 12:14 PM
If Stern accepts this ruling, looks to me like he has then agreed the arbitrator had the right to make this ruling. Therefore I don't think he will accept this decision.

Maybe Stern will come back with a different ruling involving one of the other players and leave JO's suspension reduced to time served. That way at least he never admits the arbitrator had any say so in this matter.

As for the arbitrator's ruling, I am heart broken for Ron. But I am ready to move on if Stern immediately reviews this matter and reduces JO's suspension. What the hell else can you do?

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 12:16 PM
This 10 game reduction seems like nothing - like they threw us a bone... give the poor saps Jermaine, they will still come up short without Ron.

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 12:17 PM
No Ron!? WTF! F This...

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 12:20 PM
no chance stern allows this to happen, he will fight it.

able
12-22-2004, 12:21 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh

but doesn't this "silence" the supporters in Conseco, since they now have JO to cheer at on Christmas day..........

What a security move!!!

JO's impact can be big, but please be not surprised if it isn't, rythm, practise and so on.

The waiting is now for:

A. Stern's reaction (anyone waiting at the courthouse?)
B. Walsh's reaction (press statement anyone?)
C. The Simons' statement (unscheduled press statement anyone?)
D. JO's statement?
E. Ron's statement
F. Billy Hunter's statement

damn you guys have a lot of press conferences to look forward to!

anyone that can get his hands on the ruling form Kaplan? (full text) I'd be grateful for a long time :)

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:23 PM
Interesting that the first two to come here saying Stern has to and will fight this are Pistons fans. I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 12:24 PM
Interesting that the first two to come here saying Stern has to and will fight this are Pistons fans. I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting.

I would rather he play, would make for a better game but I just don't see it happening.

able
12-22-2004, 12:24 PM
no chance stern allows this to happen, he will fight it.

?????

He's laughing the buttons of his pants at this moment.
I am not yet convinced this is not a stunt to A. silence certain players and union members and B. placate the crowd in Conseco for a more "less distracting" Christmas game.

I can for the love of God and many others, not come up with one reason to find the suspension of Ron justifiable as is, and I have a vivid imagination.

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 12:24 PM
Stern has a bit of a Napolean complex - he will probably fight it

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:26 PM
I can for the love of God and many others, not come up with one reason to find the suspension of Ron justifiable as is, and I have a vivid imagination.
I was going to say "Ron's past behavior", but that's why STERN would do it. As for the arbitrator? Hmm. That is odd. This is probably a "compromise" with the league.

Doug
12-22-2004, 12:27 PM
Stern doesn't have to fight it. How many cases are going to go to arbitration before the year is up? 0 most likely.

This point is going to be clarified in the new CBA regardless if Stern appeals or not.

able
12-22-2004, 12:28 PM
I can not see in the warped head of Stern, nor do I at any given moment in time so desire, but......

He has more to lose then to win by going to court.

Wait and see how he spins this, but it is my guess he will not take chances and he has set a precedent with Ron, so even if Ron ever comes back to the NBA, the second he makes a flagrant or comments to loud he will be suspened for another year plus.

After all, he can now count priors in suspending players, anyone want to state that is not a big win for him ?

able
12-22-2004, 12:30 PM
I was going to say "Ron's past behavior", but that's why STERN would do it. As for the arbitrator? Hmm. That is odd. This is probably a "compromise" with the league.

That is what I am thinking and it is exactly that thought that makes me puke time and time again.

It means someone sold Ron (and Jax, whom I have less of a problem with) and that thought alone is VERY sickening.

sixthman
12-22-2004, 12:35 PM
I agree it's a big win for Stern.

I'll sslightly change what I wrote earlier. If I were Stern, I'd come out and say I find the arbitrator's decision interesting but not binding. Independently, my decision is that in light of Jermaine's track record of service to humanity and the fact it is now clear he never left the court, O'Neal's suspension is being reduced to 15 games. The penalities for all the others involved will not be reduced. Case closed.

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 12:36 PM
If we sold Ronnie down the river for ten measly games I will be beside myself - this is just so freaking maddening. It makes no sense.

mmxx
12-22-2004, 12:40 PM
Interesting that the first two to come here saying Stern has to and will fight this are Pistons fans. I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting.

because they are s c a r e d... now that they get JO as Christmas gift...

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 12:41 PM
:applaud:

I am thrilled with this decision.

JO is our MVP, our key player, the most important part of our championship dream. The earlier we get him back, the better.

If I had time to dig, I know I said once or twice that it wouldn't surprise me if Kaplan ruled he had authority but still did not significantly reduce the punishmnts.


I agree with Sixthman, Stern will say "This decision isn't binding but Kaplan's case is compelling so I'm reducing JO's punishment to 15 games."

Outsider
12-22-2004, 12:41 PM
I was wondering if this might happen and here is my thoughts on it:

It is a timing issue. Literally. When was the game called by the officials? not before Artest and Jackson went into the stands and started swinging at people. But it may have been called BEFORE JO threw his punch. If so then it may simply be that Kaplan viewed Jackson and Artest's actions as being "on the court" because the game was still "active" and that JO's actions were "off court" because the game was called.

Simply put, he couldn't rule on Artest and Jackson so those suspensions stand. But he can rule on JO and seeks a 10 game reduction.


Thoughts?

Outsider

DisplacedKnick
12-22-2004, 12:41 PM
?????

He's laughing the buttons of his pants at this moment.
I am not yet convinced this is not a stunt to A. silence certain players and union members and B. placate the crowd in Conseco for a more "less distracting" Christmas game.

I can for the love of God and many others, not come up with one reason to find the suspension of Ron justifiable as is, and I have a vivid imagination.

Really?

He went into the stands, grabbed a fan who hadn't done anything and helped initiate a riot.

How's that?

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:42 PM
I don't believe they threw anyone under a bus, down a river, through the woods, to grandma's house, etc. I think they were looking at choosing between fighting for all 3 equally and losing, or focusing on Jermaine and getting a minor victory. Either gain nothing, or gain a little. This does not mean for a second they were thinking about screwing Artest. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron himself thought it's the smart move for the Pacers, even if he himself is disappointed he can't play this year.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 12:43 PM
If we sold Ronnie down the river for ten measly games I will be beside myself - this is just so freaking maddening. It makes no sense.
I don't think the Pacers have voided/ bought out his contract (yet), so I wouldn't say they've sold him down the river.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 12:45 PM
because they are s c a r e d... now that they get JO as Christmas gift...

Yeah thats It, we are scared of a team who has jermaine O'Neal in it lol

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:45 PM
I was wondering if this might happen and here is my thoughts on it:

It is a timing issue. Literally. When was the game called by the officials? not before Artest and Jackson went into the stands and started swinging at people. But it may have been called BEFORE JO threw his punch. If so then it may simply be that Kaplan viewed Jackson and Artest's actions as being "on the court" because the game was still "active" and that JO's actions were "off court" because the game was called.

Simply put, he couldn't rule on Artest and Jackson so those suspensions stand. But he can rule on JO and seeks a 10 game reduction.


Thoughts?

Outsider
Interesting. I never thought about it that way before.

able
12-22-2004, 12:46 PM
Really?

He went into the stands, grabbed a fan who hadn't done anything and helped initiate a riot.

How's that?

Great! If your kicks are revionist history.

Mine is the truth.

See, different angle but try it, might be a whole new experience.

(now if you had left the "helped initiate a riot" out of there, you might have had an argument, but I guess you to saw it lacked strength so you had to strengthen it. A bit like Stern did with his mass-media manipulation.

Doug
12-22-2004, 12:47 PM
Interesting, Outsider, interesting.

able
12-22-2004, 12:51 PM
Outsider, that is the main reason I would like to read the complete ruling, to know these things, there is to much to speculate on right now

Hicks
12-22-2004, 12:51 PM
How can you possibly argue Ron DIDN'T help initiate a riot? He ran into the stands where the drunken idiots roam. That's the only revisionist history I see.

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 12:53 PM
you better be *****ing scared of a team with JO you ***got piston fan. UGH! I'm telling you expect atleast a 20 pt blowout! if we lose I'm done...if you can't get up for a game vs the pistons like this then you don't deserve crap.

Trace
12-22-2004, 12:53 PM
I'm just glad we get JO back sooner. I really think he is the key to any success we can hope for this year, not Ron.

Besides, who is to say getting Artest back would turn out to be a good thing? There is such a thing as team chemistry and we really don't know that it would be a net positive for him to return this year. Sitting for an entire season may be exactly what he needs.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 12:55 PM
JO's first punch occurred with Ron was still on the court.

The game is not "called" until Chuck and Reggie escort Ron to the lockerrom. ESPN cuts back to a "full court" view of the vomitorium (a word I didn't know existed prior to this brawl :smart: ) as the announcement is made both on TV and over the PA system.

I think you guys are grasping here.

able
12-22-2004, 12:55 PM
How can you possibly argue Ron DIDN'T help initiate a riot? He ran into the stands where the drunken idiots roam. That's the only revisionist history I see.

<shakes head>

So you missed Ben's actions, the other things going on on the court, the tossing of a cup, the drunken crowd (aaaah you did notice that)

Ron not not help initiate a riot, he did not initiate a riot by himself either.

That process was started BEFORE the cup was thrown, and in full swing when the cup was thrown.

Ron did not make it better, but he initiated **** all.

By reacting to something that is happening you are doing that, reacting not starting. action = reaction however the action starts it, the reaction is either a predictable or non-predictable outcome of the initiation.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 12:56 PM
I don't think you understand the word "helped"

"Ron helped initiate a riot."

Is factually true.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 12:56 PM
you better be *****ing scared of a team with JO you ***got piston fan. UGH! I'm telling you expect atleast a 20 pt blowout! if we lose I'm done...if you can't get up for a game vs the pistons like this then you don't deserve crap.

JO is no duncan, he isn't suddenly going to be a difference maker.

no artest=NO WIN

he was your only real hope against the pistons, now he is out..and the fact jackson is also still missing. Pistons should still win by double fiqures.

oh and JO won't be back..you are crazy if you think stern is going to let a freaking arbitator run his league.

able
12-22-2004, 12:58 PM
oh and JO won't be back..you are crazy if you think stern is going to let a freaking arbitator run his league.

You are so right, he has already given the key to the Pistons.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 12:58 PM
I'm just glad we get JO back sooner. I really think he is the key to any success we can hope for this year, not Ron.

Besides, who is to say getting Artest back would turn out to be a good thing? There is such a thing as team chemistry and we really don't know that it would be a net positive for him to return this year. Sitting for an entire season may be exactly what he needs.
:amen:

I'm equally excited to get JO back sooner AND not have to worry about what Ron is going to do next, and when.

Stryder
12-22-2004, 12:58 PM
you better be *****ing scared of a team with JO you ***got piston fan. UGH! I'm telling you expect atleast a 20 pt blowout! if we lose I'm done...if you can't get up for a game vs the pistons like this then you don't deserve crap.

Using a form of "gay" as an insult. Classy.

able
12-22-2004, 01:01 PM
I don't think you understand the word "helped"

"Ron helped initiate a riot."

Is factually true.

Jay, revisionist history is seldom proven on factual incorrectness, it is the leaving out of matters without which nothing would have occurred that matter.

And helping still (unless preceeded by the word "involuntary") shows something that is done on purpose with a goal, not on a domino effect.

Would we have said that Ron refused to help incite a riot had he not reacted?

Fact and fact, how amazing language can be, but then you work with contracts, you should know :D

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:01 PM
Pistons_fan, you have no right to be boasting. Your team has it's entire roster intact, and they are still playing poorly. Predicting double digit win for your team against anyone right now, is not a safe bet.

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 01:01 PM
:amen:

I'm equally excited to get JO back sooner AND not have to worry about what Ron is going to do next, and when.


Typical Pacer fan...

Second place is okay, as long as they play Kenny Loggins at the game and Reggie hits a 3!!!

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 01:01 PM
JO is no duncan, he isn't suddenly going to be a difference maker.

no artest=NO WIN

he was your only real hope against the pistons, now he is out..and the fact jackson is also still missing. Pistons should still win by double fiqures.


That's funny.

able
12-22-2004, 01:02 PM
Using a form of "gay" as an insult. Classy.

Could have been "big"



:D

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 01:02 PM
who gives a **** about being classy....you think JO won't make a difference? You wait you little *****. Come back after the xmas game... YOU WON'T ...you won't be here...you will be under the bed making excuses. Go Die now...you won't win ***** this year. You can count on that...

able
12-22-2004, 01:04 PM
Pistons_fan, you have no right to be boasting. Your team has it's entire roster intact, and they are still playing poorly. Predicting double digit win for your team against anyone right now, is not a safe bet.

LOL predicting a win per se is even a dicey adventure with that lot and a burned out coach

DisplacedKnick
12-22-2004, 01:04 PM
Great! If your kicks are revionist history.

Mine is the truth.

See, different angle but try it, might be a whole new experience.

(now if you had left the "helped initiate a riot" out of there, you might have had an argument, but I guess you to saw it lacked strength so you had to strengthen it. A bit like Stern did with his mass-media manipulation.

So you're saying that if Ron hadn't gone into the stands there would have been a riot anyway?

There's a real world - right now you're not living in it.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:05 PM
Typical Pacer fan...

Second place is okay, as long as they play Kenny Loggins at the game and Reggie hits a 3!!!

That is better than contending for a title, only to be shot in the foot by a player who can't take the pressure.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 01:05 PM
Typical Pacer fan...

Second place is okay, as long as they play Kenny Loggins at the game and Reggie hits a 3!!!
Whatever. (Actually, if Chuck Person or Jalen Rose hit the three I'd probably agree :devil: )

You know just as well as I do that when the pressure is on, Ron hurts the Pacers far more than he helps them. I'm just willing to admit it to his supporters.

You could say we were screwed this year either way, and I'd agree. Ron either hurts our chances with his presence or with his absence. But either way, Ron hurts our chances.

Stryder
12-22-2004, 01:06 PM
who gives a **** about being classy....you think JO won't make a difference? You wait you little *****. Come back after the xmas game... YOU WON'T ...you won't be here...you will be under the bed making excuses. Go Die now...you won't win ***** this year. You can count on that...

Calm down and stop acting like a child. Oh wait, you are a child...

Relax, dude. IF JO is able to play against the Pistons, he will make an impact, that is for sure, but the IF at the beginning of the sentence is the qualifier...

Grant
12-22-2004, 01:07 PM
Well put me down in the "disappointed" category. I thought that the arbitrator would be more likely to jule for Artest/Jax, since they were off-court.

The disturbing thing is that it looks as if he says he [/b]did have jurisdiction[/b] but agreed with the suspensions. Must be a compromise, or Kaplan did not feel that he had enough power to reduce them. He likely thought he was on shaky legal ground and tried to throw the union a bone, without making Stern mad enough to fight it.

Dr Huxtable
12-22-2004, 01:07 PM
JOneal7, sometimes I think you give a real bad idea of what Pacers fans are like.

Honestly, calm down- Pistons_fan is just trying to start trouble, and you're doing exactly what he came here to see.

Diamond Dave
12-22-2004, 01:08 PM
I'd watch it JOneal7, keep making posts like that and I will garuntee that it is you who won't be here.

able
12-22-2004, 01:08 PM
So you're saying that if Ron hadn't gone into the stands there would have been a riot anyway?

There's a real world - right now you're not living in it.

Uhh sorry ?? is that the one.... OK i will drop the funny remarks.

No I was saying that he riot had already started and was initiated by other people.

more explicitely: Fans were being hyped up by a certain player and his friends and family
It was then that the riot started when the "public" started throwing things on the court and towards the players.
Culiminating in a Cup hitting a player, what happened then was an outcome of riotous behaviour.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:08 PM
Pistons_fan, you have no right to be boasting. Your team has it's entire roster intact, and they are still playing poorly. Predicting double digit win for your team against anyone right now, is not a safe bet.

we look down at bad teams but win the games that are against good teams and the pistons will be motivated to face the pacers, purely because of what happened at the palace.either way, pistons always start slow and turn it on..which is what will happen soon enough.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:10 PM
who gives a **** about being classy....you think JO won't make a difference? You wait you little *****. Come back after the xmas game... YOU WON'T ...you won't be here...you will be under the bed making excuses. Go Die now...you won't win ***** this year. You can count on that...


HAHAHA that had me rolling

I think It's time mommy gave you your bottle.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:12 PM
Calm down and stop acting like a child. Oh wait, you are a child...


Telling him to calm down, and then sliding that in there is not very effective.

Doug
12-22-2004, 01:12 PM
So you're saying that if Ron hadn't gone into the stands there would have been a riot anyway?
.

It's certainly possible. Once the first cup flew, others very well could have followed if security did not respond quickly. Then things could have really gotten out of control.

I don't believe that, but it's possible.

It's tough to figure out the exact cause of a riot. I started one once, I should know. :-) Well, not quite a riot, I guess. It was mostly harmless, but it did spread over several blocks and the police did break it up. Snowballs had already escallated to bottle rockets, friendly snowballs tossed in fun to ice balls tossed with malice. It certainly could have kept going.

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 01:13 PM
Whatever. (Actually, if Chuck Person or Jalen Rose hit the three I'd probably agree :devil: )

You know just as well as I do that when the pressure is on, Ron hurts the Pacers far more than he helps them. I'm just willing to admit it to his supporters.

You could say we were screwed this year either way, and I'd agree. Ron either hurts our chances with his presence or with his absence. But either way, Ron hurts our chances.

I'm guessing you are joking here. That, or your knowledge of basketball ends at your driveway hoop.

able
12-22-2004, 01:13 PM
HAHAHA that had me rolling

I think It's time mommy gave you your bottle.

I think it's time you pipe down, you are passing a line that is described by "normal" people as "trolling" and one that is at the very least "frowned" upon here and usually results in bans.

Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

Stryder
12-22-2004, 01:14 PM
Telling him to calm down, and then sliding that in there is not very effective.

True. But, it's a fact. He is a child.

I can't stop him from making stupid comments and throwing uninformed insults, but someone needs to.

Mushmouth
12-22-2004, 01:14 PM
That is better than contending for a title, only to be shot in the foot by a player who can't take the pressure.


Like I said - typical backwards loser logic.

able
12-22-2004, 01:16 PM
True. But, it's a fact. He is a child.

I can't stop him from making stupid comments and throwing uninformed insults, but someone needs to.

His way of expressing might be slightly different and is not condoned, but provocation, certainly in light of the outcome of the ruling, is something not to be overlooked first.

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:16 PM
I think it's time you pipe down, you are passing a line that is described by "normal" people as "trolling" and one that is at the very least "frowned" upon here and usually results in bans.

Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

I'm only stating my opinion, It's not me who is throwing out insults. Or do you allow that here? I wish the Pacers luck for saturday but I wouldn't expect Jermaine to play, stern just won't allow It.

able
12-22-2004, 01:17 PM
Like I said - typical backwards loser logic.

Relax, some people think differently, yet know a lot, we do not all come to the same conclusion upon looking at the same facts, heck I should know :)

try keeping the discussion to a level where we do not stoop to the above quoted.

Lord Helmet
12-22-2004, 01:19 PM
I'm finally awake and I was woke to see JO will be back on X-mas day!!I can deal with the suspension to Jax but I don't want us to give up on Ron which I don't think the Pacers or Simons will I think they will both fight the hardest for the remaining suspended players.Anyway now it is a fair suspension for JO he should have been returning by now anyway.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 01:21 PM
I'm guessing you are joking here. That, or your knowledge of basketball ends at your driveway hoop.
About Chuck and Jalen, yes.

About Ron. No. It is patently obvious that Ron hurts the Pacers more than he helps them. But he does an interesting job of snowblinding his fans because "he plays at 110% all the time".

The 'future draft pick' we should've traded him for during the summer of 2003 wouldn't have been benched for 'conduct detrimental to winning', had a meltdown in the Miami series and another one in the ECFs last spring, wouldn't have declared himself the team's MVP over the summer, wouldn't have done something in the lockerroom in which JO told him to "quit acting like a damn fool" - whether he was asking for time off and for what purpose are subject to conflicting reports - wouldn't have led his teammates into the stands, etc., etc., etc. And that's just the stuff he's done since Bird came back...

Hicks
12-22-2004, 01:22 PM
who gives a **** about being classy....you think JO won't make a difference? You wait you little *****. Come back after the xmas game... YOU WON'T ...you won't be here...you will be under the bed making excuses. Go Die now...you won't win ***** this year. You can count on that...
All right, you've had plenty of venting, now please chill out.

able
12-22-2004, 01:22 PM
I'm only stating my opinion, It's not me who is throwing out insults. Or do you allow that here? I wish the Pacers luck for saturday but I wouldn't expect Jermaine to play, stern just won't allow It.

And Stern is but a puppet of Big Joe, I know, but still people here have hope and reason for it and you as a Piston fan should know better and are required to know better then to flaunt your pretty dress in here.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:23 PM
Like I said - typical backwards loser logic.

Yeah, because none of Ronnie's actions have shot us in the foot this year, have they? I must me talking crazy, Ron never negatively affects the team, and he has never crumbled under pressure!

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 01:24 PM
calm down? Ok, let me just sit here while the league basically ruins our season! A Child? Oh! I'm so hurt! Like any opinion you have matters right now.

as for the piston fan...bottle? oh please. This coming from a fan of a team who has BEN WALLACE on his team! lol...he is the biggest baby in the league! "OH NO! HE FOULED ME! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO ONE FOULS BIG BEN! NO ONE!" And then when he didn't want to fight back..."GET OVER HERE FOOL! WHAT! WHAT! I'M RIGHT HERE!" and started throwing towels and fighting his own teammates to get to ron. And I'm the baby who needs a bottle? Please!

Shade
12-22-2004, 01:26 PM
calm down? Ok, let me just sit here while the league basically ruins our season! A Child? Oh! I'm so hurt! Like any opinion you have matters right now.

as for the piston fan...bottle? oh please. This coming from a fan of a team who has BEN WALLACE on his team! lol...he is the biggest baby in the league! "OH NO! HE FOULED ME! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO ONE FOULS BIG BEN! NO ONE!" And then when he didn't want to fight back..."GET OVER HERE FOOL! WHAT! WHAT! I'M RIGHT HERE!" and started throwing towels and fighting his own teammates to get to ron. And I'm the baby who needs a bottle? Please!
We're all upset, JO7, but you can't go calling ppl "***gots" and "*****es"...even if they are Pistons fans. ;)

It's okay to be upset, but vent appropriately. I don't want to have to play Stern and suspend you.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 01:27 PM
Like I said - typical backwards loser logic.
Hardly. It's the most accurate description I've seen of it. When Ron's here, you get his talent, but his negatives as well, which are many. If he's not, the negatives go away, but so does the talent. Either way, we lose. Whoops, that's loser talk. :rolleyes:

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
he is the biggest baby in the league! "OH NO! HE FOULED ME! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO ONE FOULS BIG BEN! NO ONE!"

Oh lord that was funny. :)

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
calm down? Ok, let me just sit here while the league basically ruins our season! A Child? Oh! I'm so hurt! Like any opinion you have matters right now.

as for the piston fan...bottle? oh please. This coming from a fan of a team who has BEN WALLACE on his team! lol...he is the biggest baby in the league! "OH NO! HE FOULED ME! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO ONE FOULS BIG BEN! NO ONE!" And then when he didn't want to fight back..."GET OVER HERE FOOL! WHAT! WHAT! I'M RIGHT HERE!" and started throwing towels and fighting his own teammates to get to ron. And I'm the baby who needs a bottle? Please!

considering artest fouled him hard when the game was over that makes him a baby? babies don't back down from anyone...funny how artest likes to punch fans but doesn't have the guts to fight ben, although I don't blame him.

Ron Artest has cost you a chance at a title, not the pistons, not stern not anybody..those players of yours got you into this mess by attacking like 5 year olds in a playground.

Doug
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
It's okay to be upset, but vent appropriately. I don't want to have to play Stern and suspend you.

We can handle the arbitration at Pizza King on Thursday. :-)

Bball
12-22-2004, 01:28 PM
I figured Artest's and SJax's suspensions would be reduced because they were 'off the court' (even tho I personally still don't think that is what the CBA was meaning in its lanquage) and they were soooo long. JO, would only get his reduced if the arbitrator ruled he could hear JO's portion of the events since JO never left the court (tho I felt JO's was too long the arbitrator first needed to find he had jurisdiction).

And I always have felt Artest's case was different due to his history and publicity surrounding that history. It was and is totally understandable how Artest's suspension could remain and been handed down in the first place, whether we like it or not. He simply has used up his 'benefit of the doubt' long ago. Do we really know for certain what all the league may know on Artest that we haven't been privy to? You know they know all that we do, but do they know more? Has the league tried to downplay Artest's antics in the past only to be bitten by him just has the Pacers have been?

So I'm actually only really surprised that SJax suspension wasn't reduced. I'm also surprised at the number of Pacer fans (in this thread) who have no problem with SJax's suspension not being reduced.

As far as whether Stern will abide by this decision, I'll admit it is easier for him since it is really only 10 games off of JO's time and doesn't appear to challenge him (Stern) too much.... BUT it does challenge him.

What does he have to gain and what does he have to lose by accepting this? If he takes a bigger picture view and sees this as a challenge to his authority and integrity of his office then I'd say the answer is: He challenges this and fights it hard.

OTOH, he could take the diplomatic route, spin it by not accepting the arbitrator's findings BUT claiming to reduce the suspension on his own accord in part due to new information from all the sources now available. The problem with that is that JO has the harshest criminal charges against him so that info probably shouldn't help him. But in the world of spin even the bad is good.

My heart says he compromises and lets JO's suspension stand at 15 games. My head says he will challenge it because it challenges his authority.

-BBall
6-i

stipo
12-22-2004, 01:31 PM
Ah yes, the "Ron kills the team/ Ron is the only hope" debate. I feel a sense of deja-vu. Or maybe I'm caught in some sort of loop like "Groundhog Day".

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:34 PM
. When Ron's here, you get his talent, but his negatives as well, which are many. If he's not, the negatives go away, but so does the talent. Either way, we lose.

It would be great if Ron did not have issues, or did not have talent. This above truth can drive fans insane. But at least it keeps things interesting.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 01:34 PM
bball,

IMO, since Jax was in the stands, swinging, regardless of whether it was self-defense or not, I didn't expect his sentence to be reduced.

Your last sentence is brilliant. Here's the other fact that speaks to your (and my) brain... The only thing Stern has to lose is ten games from JO. With almost nothing to lose from his perspective, except his authority, why not fight it tooth and nail?

Hicks
12-22-2004, 01:35 PM
Ah yes, the "Ron kills the team/ Ron is the only hope" debate. I feel a sense of deja-vu. Or maybe I'm caught in some sort of loop like "Groundhog Day".
"Phil? Like the groundhog Phil??"

(Obviously annoyed, in a mocking voice) "Yes, like the groundhog Phil" (leaves)

:D

I haven't watched that in a while. I think I'll pull that one off the shelf soon.

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 01:35 PM
So I'm actually only really surprised that SJax suspension wasn't reduced. I'm also surprised at the number of Pacer fans (in this thread) who have no problem with SJax's suspension not being reduced.


-BBall
6-i

I have to tell you - I though Jax was looking for a fight to prove himself to his new teammates - I thought it was him and his attitude on the court before Ron went in the stands that really fueld the conflict. Then he loses it in the stands, throwing punches left and right. In all honesty, had they suspended HIM for the season, I am not sure I would have thought it unjust.

Doug
12-22-2004, 01:36 PM
With almost nothing to lose from his perspective, except his authority, why not fight it tooth and nail?Especially since he only has to drag it out another couple of weeks and it's a moot point, except for lost salary.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 01:37 PM
Ah yes, the "Ron kills the team/ Ron is the only hope" debate. I feel a sense of deja-vu. Or maybe I'm caught in some sort of loop like "Groundhog Day".

I enjoyed that movie.

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 01:39 PM
lol! ron tryed doing the right thing and he's the one who gets called on it? Ben Wallace was afraid of friggin charlie ward! Give me a break! He didn't have the guts...pshhhh...The game was over? so that gives ben the right to go in and show up ron artest? NO ONE SHOWS UP RON...It doesn't matter what the score is. Same with anyone who really cares about the game and plays D like Ron. Payton would not have let him do that. Malone wouldn't have. Why was ben even in the game? Bens a friggin baby. He has to go and make a scene and make a complete *** of himself. (Good job tho)
As for my remarks...I apologize...My emotions are riding high with a lot of you. And this piston is just here to flame and cause trouble. And you guys want to suspend me?
Ok Stern...

That would mean piston fans win again ;)

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:42 PM
lol! ron tryed doing the right thing and he's the one who gets called on it? Ben Wallace was afraid of friggin charlie ward! Give me a break! He didn't have the guts...pshhhh...The game was over? so that gives ben the right to go in and show up ron artest? NO ONE SHOWS UP RON...It doesn't matter what the score is. Same with anyone who really cares about the game and plays D like Ron. Payton would not have let him do that. Malone wouldn't have. Why was ben even in the game? Bens a friggin baby. He has to go and make a scene and make a complete *** of himself. (Good job tho)
As for my remarks...I apologize...My emotions are riding high with a lot of you. And this piston is just here to flame and cause trouble. And you guys want to suspend me?
Ok Stern...

That would mean piston fans win again ;)

Charlie ward? say what? there is no one man in the NBA who could take big ben in a fight....and my your logic doing the right thing was artest hitting fans half his size and weight? sure....end your teams title hopes just to punch some kids...yeah real smart move there. fact is you don't foul someone hard when you are up 15 with 40 secs left...

Shade
12-22-2004, 01:45 PM
Charlie ward? say what? there is no one man in the NBA who could take big ben in a fight....and my your logic doing the right thing was artest hitting fans half his size and weight? sure....end your teams title hopes just to punch some kids...yeah real smart move there. fact is you don't foul someone hard when you are up 15 with 40 secs left...First of all, Ron's foul wasn't that hard. And if Ben hadn't shoved Ron into the support on the previous play, he never would have been retaliated against.

Do you honestly think Ron is afraid of Ben? :rolleyes:

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 01:46 PM
First of all, Ron's foul wasn't that hard. And if Ben hadn't shoved Ron into the pole on the previous play, he never would have been retaliated against.

Do you honestly think Ron is afraid of Ben? :rolleyes:

it was a hard foul considering the situation of the game yes...and yes artest was clearly afraid of ben, looked like he had seen a ghost when he was walking as fast as possible to get away from him

Hicks
12-22-2004, 01:47 PM
I have to tell you - I though Jax was looking for a fight to prove himself to his new teammates - I thought it was him and his attitude on the court before Ron went in the stands that really fueld the conflict. Then he loses it in the stands, throwing punches left and right. In all honesty, had they suspended HIM for the season, I am not sure I would have thought it unjust. I think that's bull.

First of all "throwing punches left and right" is crap. I just watched the tape again to check, he threw two. After the guy tosses beer at he and Ron, and then later at the guy who grabbed/punched Ron.

Let's go back to the court. He wasn't even fired up until getting shoved by Piston players, and then he talked **** after Hunter was in his ear.

He doesn't go in the stands until Ron is up there. i think he went up to get Ron, but being already pissed off, blew his top when that moron threw the beer at he and Ron.

He's just a typical hot head who, after already being heated up, flipped out over the beer. He wasn't trying to prove ****.

So he went overboard and went about the wrong way of trying to do that right thing (getting Ron), and it cost him 30 games. Fair enough.

We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one.

sixthman
12-22-2004, 01:49 PM
Here's the other fact that speaks to your (and my) brain... The only thing Stern has to lose is ten games from JO. With almost nothing to lose from his perspective, except his authority, why not fight it tooth and nail?

Why not fight it? Because if it goes to court and the court rules the arbitrator has jurisdiction, then Stern has lost a bargaining chip in the next negotiations?

Seems to me the saner thing to do is for Stern to not admit the arbitrator has jurisdiction, but essentially go along with the decision.

Shade
12-22-2004, 01:56 PM
it was a hard foul considering the situation of the game yes...and yes artest was clearly afraid of ben, looked like he had seen a ghost when he was walking as fast as possible to get away from him
How about Ben's foul on Ron? The situation of the game was exactly the same.

Ron is not afraid of Ben. I don't think Ron is afraid of anyone. He was simply trying to do what was right for a change and stay out of it so he wouldn't get into trouble. And there was a point, after the towel was thrown, where Ron tried to get up off the scorer's table and go after Ben, but was held down.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 01:58 PM
Why not fight it? Because if it goes to court and the court rules the arbitrator has jurisdiction, then Stern has lost a bargaining chip in the next negotiations?

Seems to me the saner thing to do is for Stern to not admit the arbitrator has jurisdiction, but essentially go along with the decision.
I'm not as anti-Stern as many of you, but I'm not about to use the word 'sane' and David Stern in the same sentence. :D

Is your approach "Safer"... absolutely.


But this whole "arbitration" issue is based on the CBA. It is a mutually-agreed-upon process. So its going to be negotiated, albeit with much heavier scrutiny this time, regardless of what happens next with this case. So even if Stern loses, the owners could decide this issue was so important that clarify the language AND lock the players out until they give in. I happen to think that shortening the contracts to a maximum of 3-years is a bigger issue for the owners, to help them get some control over thier 'maverick' GMs, but maybe not...

lschmidt
12-22-2004, 02:00 PM
Pacers fan in Iowa here. Don't typically have time to post as I catch up on Pacers new at work. Since everyone is interested in how NBA (Stern) will respond, here it is - they are taking it to court. This is quoted from the updated article on ESPN...hearing is scheduled for tomorrow 10 a.m.

"We have consistently maintained that the arbitrator has no legitimate role in this matter," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "While we obviously agree with Mr. Kaplan's decision upholding virtually all of the suspensions, we don't agree with his conclusion that the conduct did not occur on the playing court, and we have no choice other than to challenge it in federal court."

sixthman
12-22-2004, 02:02 PM
You nailed it Jay.

fwpacerfan
12-22-2004, 02:02 PM
Charlie ward? say what? there is no one man in the NBA who could take big ben in a fight....and my your logic doing the right thing was artest hitting fans half his size and weight? sure....end your teams title hopes just to punch some kids...yeah real smart move there. fact is you don't foul someone hard when you are up 15 with 40 secs left...

Artest only hit one person - the moron who squared up on him on the court. That guy got what he deserved. If you square up on a pro athlete on the court/field then what you get is what you get (kind of like if you go trolling on a Pacers message board).

As for your other idiotic post about Artest being afraid of Wallace, the only reason Artest 'was walking as fast as possible to get away from him' was because Wallace had assaulted him in the head. Ron did the right thing by backing off and letting Wallace rant and rage.

As for your last point about fouling w/40 secs. left, it sounds to me like you are justifying Wallace's behavior. Next you will be telling us that it was somehow Artest's fault that Wallace's BIG brother was hitting people in the back of the head. :rolleyes:

Doug
12-22-2004, 02:03 PM
Hard foul? I didn't think it was that hard by NBA standards. Heck, I don't think it was that hard by pickup game standards either. I get fouled harder than that all the time. The foulers aren't as strong as Ron, but I'm not as tough as Ben either.

If Ben's as tough as you say - whoop anybody in the NBA, eat nails for breakfast, make Dale Davis cry, tough - shouldn't he have barely felt a thing?

Face it, Ben overreacted.

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Shade, are you trying to talk sense and reason with a "Piston Fan" ??

"Shakes head, while walking away"

:hmm: :rolleyes: :shakehead :jawdrop: :rotflmao: :D

Guaransheed
12-22-2004, 02:08 PM
Artest only hit one person - the moron who squared up on him on the court. That guy got what he deserved. If you square up on a pro athlete on the court/field then what you get is what you get (kind of like if you go trolling on a Pacers message board).

So if it is ok for your players to hit anyone on the court than what is so bad about Ben's brother?

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 02:09 PM
I think that's bull.

First of all "throwing punches left and right" is crap. I just watched the tape again to check, he threw two. After the guy tosses beer at he and Ron, and then later at the guy who grabbed/punched Ron.
We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one.

Alright - I can see your points. I am just trying to point out that relatively, Ron's punishment was unjust and one could argue Jax was worst - it is a back asswards way of saying Ron got screwed. I am just so disappointed.

And can the Pistons fans please back off - your fan-base effectively wiped out your main competition, we hate you :devil:

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 02:10 PM
So if it is ok for your players to hit anyone on the court than what is so bad about Ben's brother?
At least Ron was facing the guy he hit and was not standing behind him hitting him in the back of the head.:mad:

Guaransheed
12-22-2004, 02:14 PM
At least Ron was facing the guy he hit and was not standing behind him hitting him in the back of the head.:mad:
That is what I wanted to hear, so are we saying that that JO should have the biggest suspension? JO blindsided a guy that was getting up from the floor after helping his friend which was the exact thing Fred Jones was going to do.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 02:15 PM
So if it is ok for your players to hit anyone on the court than what is so bad about Ben's brother?
:omg: You have got to be kidding.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 02:19 PM
That is what I wanted to hear, so are we saying that that JO should have the biggest suspension? JO blindsided a guy that was getting up from the floor after helping his friend which was the exact thing Fred Jones was going to do.
No, the guy JO hit had grabbed Artest moments earlier.

Guaransheed
12-22-2004, 02:24 PM
No, the guy JO hit had grabbed Artest moments earlier.
I could be wrong but if I remeber right Artest was fighting with his friend when the guy jumped at Artest to get him away from his friend, about thirty seconds later Artest was nowhere around and JO runs in from half court to blindside a guy. I don't totally agree with what I am saying it is more to make a point that of how asinine some of you have been about this whole fiasco

Guaransheed
12-22-2004, 02:24 PM
No, the guy JO hit had grabbed Artest moments earlier.
Ok so ron Artest just grabbed an innocent fan so those people had the right to attack him?

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 02:27 PM
That is what I wanted to hear, so are we saying that that JO should have the biggest suspension? JO blindsided a guy that was getting up from the floor after helping his friend which was the exact thing Fred Jones was going to do.
There again, 2 different incidents must have been occurring at the same time on Nov. 19th in the Palace as the tapes I have seen does not show things the way you describe them but I would really like to see your version.

:confused:

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 02:32 PM
I could be wrong but if I remeber right Artest was fighting with his friend when the guy jumped at Artest to get him away from his friend, about thirty seconds later Artest was nowhere around and JO runs in from half court to blindside a guy. I don't totally agree with what I am saying it is more to make a point that of how asinine some of you have been about this whole fiasco
And you are sure the only thing on this guy's mind was to try to get his friend away from Ron??? They probably only came onto the court to get an autograph, right. :rolleyes:

Shade
12-22-2004, 02:35 PM
Shade, are you trying to talk sense and reason with a "Piston Fan" ??

"Shakes head, while walking away"

:hmm: :rolleyes: :shakehead :jawdrop: :rotflmao: :DYeah, I know. I'd probably have better luck trying to drown a fish. :unimpress

Bball
12-22-2004, 02:42 PM
I have to tell you - I though Jax was looking for a fight to prove himself to his new teammates - I thought it was him and his attitude on the court before Ron went in the stands that really fueld the conflict. Then he loses it in the stands, throwing punches left and right. In all honesty, had they suspended HIM for the season, I am not sure I would have thought it unjust.


I believe there was some provocation involved with SJax that has gotten lost in the shuffle. He got shoved on the court while everyone was focused on Artest and Wallace. Then at least one of the Pistons got mouthy with him in the heat of this whole thing. He did go into the stands but I saw nothing to make me think he thought someone had rang a bell and it was open season on Piston fans. He seemed to be go after Ron, whether to pull him out or help him I don't know, but then had a drink thrown in his face.

Since Maxwell got 10 games for going off on a fan, I figured that even if you call this worse, 20 games was possible here for Sjax. The initial reports had the Pacers getting 30-20-20. I believed at the time that was a trial balloon floated by Stern to get the initial media/casual fan reaction to that before making his final decision. If the sentiment would've been that was too lenient or that the Pacers are lucky it isn't more then he goes with something more. If the sentiment is that is about right or even too tough then he probably keeps it right there. Of course the 30-20-20 thing could've just been bad reporting but I can't discount the chance it was a trial balloon.

In any event.... 30-20-20 is something in line with where I thought the arbitrator would go if he cut Artest slack on his past history with a chance of JO being less since he didn't leave the court.

-BBall

EDIT: Let me be clear, I believe Artest was already on thin ice so I cannot argue with his season suspension. Face it, it was coming at some point either from the league or the Pacers with the way he kept tweaking noses. It was simply bound to happen.

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 02:46 PM
Yeah, I know. I'd probably have better luck trying to drown a fish. :unimpress
Hey, I almost did that to the fish in the picture. He weighed over 25# and I had 8# test line on the reel. It took quite awhile to get him in and he was totally exhausted. I had to hold his tail and force water through his gills to revive him.

Hey, that is better than mouth-to-mouth.

:cool:

Free Artest
12-22-2004, 02:46 PM
The positives I guess is Fred Jones can bow be the primary backup to Reggie while Jackson starts at SF. There's no doubt about it Jackson can make up for a lot of Rons missed offense, but noone can make up for that missing defense.

Doug in CO
12-22-2004, 02:47 PM
I wonder if Reggie hangs around one more year now - guess a discussion for another day

Shade
12-22-2004, 02:51 PM
I wonder if Reggie hangs around one more year now - guess a discussion for another day
It won't matter. There will be a lock-out now thanks to Stern's stubborn ego. :mad:

Guaransheed
12-22-2004, 02:54 PM
There again, 2 different incidents must have been occurring at the same time on Nov. 19th in the Palace as the tapes I have seen does not show things the way you describe them but I would really like to see your version You did not see JO run from halfcourt and coldcock that guy?




And you are sure the only thing on this guy's mind was to try to get his friend away from Ron??? They probably only came onto the court to get an autograph, right. :rolleyes: Are you are sure the only thing JO was thinking was self defense?

Liquid Slap
12-22-2004, 03:13 PM
I personally will be glad if JO comes back. It gives me a reason to watch the Pacers/Pistons matchup on Saturday. I had planned on skipping that game and watching Shaq vs Kobe. Can't really comment on the rest of what is going on because the whole message board would be mad at me again :-D

Alabama-Redneck
12-22-2004, 03:14 PM
You did not see JO run from halfcourt and coldcock that guy?



Are you are sure the only thing JO was thinking was self defense?Yes, I saw JO hit the guy and no, I have no idea what was on JO's mind but I have been in a "few" altercations and I know what I was thinking.

I just think you need to revisit the film and watch what transpires before each thing happened. There are always circumstances leading up to everything. I am not trying to justify anything but the discussion, at least, needs to be on a level playing field.

:cool:

Hoop
12-22-2004, 03:23 PM
Makes no sense to me at all. I'd love to have JO back early, but criminally JO was charged with 2 counts of assault got 20 games, Ron got the whole season and Jax 25 games and only one count each. AJ one count 5 games, Harrison one count no suspension. How the ***** does any of that compute. Legally Ron did less than any one of them.

The precedence has already been set with Mad Max of 10 games and he was not even hit first.

There is no way anyone can say this has been fair and balanced or makes any *****ing sense.

If this is the best the players union can do, they are a joke.

naptownmenace
12-22-2004, 03:32 PM
Pacers fan in Iowa here. Don't typically have time to post as I catch up on Pacers new at work. Since everyone is interested in how NBA (Stern) will respond, here it is - they are taking it to court. This is quoted from the updated article on ESPN...hearing is scheduled for tomorrow 10 a.m.

"We have consistently maintained that the arbitrator has no legitimate role in this matter," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "While we obviously agree with Mr. Kaplan's decision upholding virtually all of the suspensions, we don't agree with his conclusion that the conduct did not occur on the playing court, and we have no choice other than to challenge it in federal court."


I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.

able
12-22-2004, 03:35 PM
I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.

IF the court decides to take it's sweet time the PA can make a case for JO playing while this decision is pending and will most likely get that decision.

As I said in other posts, IF the arbitration is not upheld, then he can still sit out the rest of the suspension, if it is however he can not get those games he didn't play back, which usually is the reasoning of the courts.

Liquid Slap
12-22-2004, 03:41 PM
I think that most are too busy having their spitting matches to notice that Stern is fighting the suspensions.

The meeting is tomorrow at 10 a.m. My guess is the ruling is upheld and Stern can throw up his hands and say "We disagree but must abide by the court's decision."

My only concern is what if the court rules that they need more time to consider the appeal decision? What happens then? Will J.O. be able to play in the meantime?

This whole situation is draining and rediculous. IMO, Stern would be more than happy to drag this thing out for a few more weeks.


Do you really want JO to play while the case is dragging along? Let's say the case does drag along and they say that JO can in fact play while this is going on. What if the ruling says that JO has to finish out his suspension term? Doesn't that hurt your team more because he has to serve his time further along in the season?

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 03:43 PM
Wouldn't we just forfeit any games he does play in? If, in fact, the suspensions are upheld?

Liquid Slap
12-22-2004, 03:47 PM
Wouldn't we just forfeit any games he does play in? If, in fact, the suspensions are upheld?

You make a good point. I guess it could be handled like that. But that would be even worse too though. That would be 15 str8 loses for your team, no matter if you won them or lost them.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 03:52 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at... if that's the scenario you've got to be certain that either (1) you're going to win the case, so the risk of a ten game losing streak is mitigated, or (2) its likely that you'll lose all ten games anyway, so why not take the risk...

JOneal7
12-22-2004, 03:53 PM
of course the piston trolls have to come over and rub it in. You *****s arent done yet. We arent finished with you yet...you still havent beat us yet this year. See you saturday..bring your dresses...

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 03:56 PM
Ithrewthecup should be required to change his handle. It's meant to aggravate people, but I get the feeling that is his and Piston_Fan's goal.

Liquid Slap
12-22-2004, 04:03 PM
Ithrewthecup should be required to change his handle. It's meant to aggravate people, but I get the feeling that is his and Piston_Fan's goal.


What exactly am I rubbing in? I just said that you may not want JO to play if the case drags on because if he loses, he still have to serve his time, which either results in late season suspension or 10 game losing streak, neither of which are good. I personally hope the case doesn't drag on and the man gets to play.

Fool
12-22-2004, 04:03 PM
I skipped the last couple pages of this thread so bare that in mind if you read on.


Yeah, I know. I'd probably have better luck trying to drown a fish.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you can drown a fish.

Since Piston fans aren't represented very well in this thread I thought I would make a level headed comment (and if you redeemed yourself later in the thread piston_fan I apologize for the bachanded remark but I started skipping through after you and JO7 began acting like idiots who would riot at a game).

I am rather surprised at the reaction here to the arbitrator's ruling. It was well publisized that Stern's side of the argument wasn't acknowledging the arbitrator's power over the incident so I didn't expect to come on here and see a thread that assumed that the arbitrator's decision would make any immediate difference. I believe that is the main cause for the striking difference in Piston fan posts in this thread vs Pacer fan posts here (a question that Hicks, I think, brought up).

That being said, I am happy for you guys as to the ruling and actually do hope that it sticks. I don't want to see an incident like that happen again and I can't say that reducing the punishments makes it more likely to happen especially since the punishments in question only involves one of the two parties that participated in the incident anyway.

Finally, I appreciate faith in your team but I think its foolish for either side to make blowout predictions. The Pistons (as we all know) haven't played all 48 minutes of a game all season and have gone down double digits in nearly all of their wins and their losses. The Pacers are minus key members of their squad (plain and simple).

shags
12-22-2004, 04:06 PM
Wouldn't we just forfeit any games he does play in? If, in fact, the suspensions are upheld?

Has that ever happened before? Has an NBA, or any professional sports team for that matter, ever forfeited a game?

I remember last year the Pistons played Rasheed Wallace and Mike James in the first half before the trade was official (and Stern slapped the Pistons with a $200,000 fine for doing it). The Pistons lost that game on the court, but I always wondered what would have happened if they won. Would the Pistons have had to forfeit? I can never remember such an instance.

Hicks
12-22-2004, 04:08 PM
What exactly am I rubbing in? I just said that you may not want JO to play if the case drags on because if he loses, he still have to serve his time, which either results in late season suspension or 10 game losing streak, neither of which are good. I personally hope the case doesn't drag on and the man gets to play.
There is a poster with the username "Pistons_fan". I think he was referring to him, not all of you.

SoupIsGood
12-22-2004, 04:12 PM
Yeah Slap, I didn't mean you.

And how do you go about drowning a fish?

Pistons_fan
12-22-2004, 04:15 PM
of course the piston trolls have to come over and rub it in. You *****s arent done yet. We arent finished with you yet...you still havent beat us yet this year. See you saturday..bring your dresses...

No one is rubbing in anything, and by the tone of your post there one would think the Pacers were the defending champions with you using "we aren't finished with you yet" and "you still havn't beat us this year" even though we have only faced ONCE...you also won 3 out of 4 last year in the regular season but that didn't mean much in the post season did it?

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 04:17 PM
Has that ever happened before? Has an NBA, or any professional sports team for that matter, ever forfeited a game?

I remember last year the Pistons played Rasheed Wallace and Mike James in the first half before the trade was official (and Stern slapped the Pistons with a $200,000 fine for doing it). The Pistons lost that game on the court, but I always wondered what would have happened if they won. Would the Pistons have had to forfeit? I can never remember such an instance.
In the NBA, suspensions are 'served immediately'. So I'm not sure there has ever been a game played in which a player's eligibility was even in doubt.

That's one possible outcome if the union would attempt to get an injunction allowing JO to play while the courts decided... Don't get me wrong - its very, very unlikely.

Dr Huxtable
12-22-2004, 04:17 PM
Pistons_fan, I suggest you don't try to argue with JOneal7 anymore, he always over reacts to stuff like this, and just just makes himself look worse.

naptownmenace
12-22-2004, 04:19 PM
Just thinking about what might happen if this thing drags out:

1. They let J.O. play but if the ruling is overturned he must sit out the next 10 games.
2. They let J.O. play but if the ruling is overturned he must sit out 10 games inconcurrently (ie, 1 game here, 2 games there, ect.)
3. They let J.O. play but if the ruling is overturned they reduce the number of suspended games by 5, meaning he sits out the next 5 games.
4. J.O. is not allowed to play and continues to miss games and pay but if the ruling is upheld he is reimbursed the money he lost for all suspended games over 15.


The ones I think are most likely are 1 and 4. I'm really afraid of the fourth option but know that it's a possibility. However, if we look at the NFL as an example, Ontario Smith of the Vikings was allowed to play until a judge gave his ruling in court. Then, Smith sat out 4 games (IIRC) but returned to the lineup afterward.

I really think that J.O. will be in the lineup on Saturday but the opposite wouldn't surprise me at all. We are talking about David Stern + Pacers... always a heartbreaking combination.

Fool
12-22-2004, 04:27 PM
Yeah Slap, I didn't mean you.

And how do you go about drowning a fish?

Fish need water to do two things in order for them to breathe. One, water must pass over their gills. Two, the water must pass over their gills in the right direction. If the water doesn't pass over their gills (you hault the fish and the water) or if it doesn't pass over their gills in the correct direction (you pull the fish backwards through water) then the fish will drown.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 04:30 PM
Updated AP article; I've bolded some stuff that I hadn't seen yet today...

Arbitrator Upholds Artest's Suspension
Pacers' O'Neal win 10-game reduction, but all other bans are upheld.

By Chris Sheridan, AP Basketball Writer

NEW YORK — Jermaine O'Neal won a 10-game reduction Wednesday in his suspension for fighting with fans during the Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons brawl, but an arbitrator also upheld NBA commissioner David Stern's bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players.

The league said it would go to federal court to challenge arbitrator Roger Kaplan's decision, which could make O'Neal eligible to return Saturday when the Pacers host the Detroit Pistons in the teams' first matchup since one of the most violent melees in NBA history.

"We have consistently maintained that the arbitrator has no legitimate role in this matter," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "While we obviously agree with Mr. Kaplan's decision upholding virtually all of the suspensions, we don't agree with his conclusion that the conduct did not occur on the playing court, and we have no choice other than to challenge it in federal court."

A hearing was set for 10 a.m. Thursday in U.S. District Court.

In a 28-page decision, Kaplan upheld Artest's season-long suspension and the penalties given to Stephen Jackson (30 games) and Anthony Johnson (five games).

O'Neal's ban was reduced from 25 games to 15. Kaplan cited O'Neal's "character, community involvement and citizenship" in deeming Stern's suspension "excessive."


"This should not be viewed as condoning what O'Neal did. He did punch a fan. The 15-game suspension is a significant penalty. The NBA cannot tolerate such conduct," Kaplan wrote in his decision, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.


The union had asked for substantial reductions in the penalties during a six-hour arbitration hearing at a Manhattan law office. The NBA declined to participate, saying Kaplan had no jurisdiction to arbitrate penalties for on-court behavior — an area in which the league contends the commissioner has sole discretion.


"We're extremely pleased that Jermaine will have the opportunity to play, although we respectfully disagree with the decision on the other three players," players' union director Billy Hunter said. "We are also pleased that the arbitrator has affirmed the right of players to appeal disciplinary measures."


Kaplan ruled that he had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Stern had just cause to issue the suspensions he gave to Artest, Jackson and Johnson.


"It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports," Kaplan wrote.


The arbitrator pointed out that O'Neal did not enter the stands and was trying to protect a teammate during the fracas.


"O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's," Kaplan wrote. "He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character."


O'Neal's agent, Arn Tellem, said: "We're gratified that the arbitrator ruled in our favor. Jermaine is anxious to put this matter behind him."

The NBA has already filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Kaplan's authority to hear the grievance, a complaint that remains pending before U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels.

Each of the players testified before Kaplan during the hearing, and union attorneys submitted three lines of argument on the issue of jurisdiction.

The union cited a 1995 modification to the collective bargaining agreement allowing for appeals in cases where the financial penalty to the disciplined played exceeds $25,000. The union also argued the definitions of what constitutes "reasonable" punishment and "on-court behavior."

The arbitrator also reviewed videotape of the entire 12-minute brawl, in which Artest sprinted into the stands and confronted a fan he believed had thrown a drink at him. Jackson also went into the stands and exchanged punches with fans, while O'Neal and Johnson punched fans who came onto the court.

Five Pacers players and seven fans face criminal charges.

Indiana coach Rick Carlisle said he had no immediate comment on the ruling. Team spokesman David Benner said the Pacers would not comment until the league responded to the ruling.

Indiana has lost nine of 14 games since the brawl, using patchwork lineups in an effort to make up for the loss of three of the team's five leading scorers. O'Neal, a three-time All-Star and eight-year veteran, was to serve the 15th game of his suspension Wednesday night when the Pacers played Philadelphia.

"We need him. We've been going through a tough stretch here, short-handed every night, guys banged up, not knowing who is going to be in the lineup," Pacers guard Jamaal Tinsley said. "We've got a couple of games coming up that we need him."

Mourning
12-22-2004, 04:32 PM
By Fool:

"That being said, I am happy for you guys as to the ruling and actually do hope that it sticks."

I am NOT HAPPY with the outcome AT ALL! We are talking 10 games on a total of more than 130 games that OUR players got suspended for, including an all-star DPOTY who won't be playing for us this year, it makes me feel sick, it makes me feel like we are there only to appear, hopefully win one series and than faaaaaaaaaaaade away in the 2nd round which is what we will do, because you are all diluding (sp?) yourselves IF you believe:
1) Bender will be able to play remaining season healthy (though I admit keep hoping he does) and
2) we won't miss Ron THAT much.
We simply do NOT have enough to go very far in the postseason.

"I don't want to see an incident like that happen again and I can't say that reducing the punishments makes it more likely to happen especially since the punishments in question only involves one of the two parties that participated in the incident anyway."

Well I welcome your aggreement that "the other side" has gotten off MUCH too lightly. Anyway, don't worry we are not mad at you anymore (atleast I'm not), but some of your other teams "fans" here are provoking and trying to rub it in.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

able
12-22-2004, 04:39 PM
Sorry, have to step in here.

This is about the playing/not playing while court case runs on.

Since the ruling of the arbitrator effectively ends the suspension tonight, it means that if the judge rules that the arbitrator has jurisdiction JO can play Sat.

Now I do not want to get technical here, but it is all about being able to amend a wrong in a verdict if it is overturned, which is a very important part of law.

After all those games no played are irretrievable, they can not be played again, they can not be given "back" in any form.
The only point then is a monetary one, but in this case the ramifications are far further stretching then just the money.
If the judge says the arbitrator had jurisdiction at any given date in the future, he would not be able to "right" the "wrong" that was done to JO and the Pacers because the suspension has been served.
Now this is a very important criterium for such a decision, so it will weigh heavy.
If on the other hand the judge on a "future" date decides that the arbitrator has no jurisdiction, JO can still sit out the rest of the suspension without any problem.

There is no "forfeit" involved if the judge orders this solution, that would never hold up anywhere in any age in any place.

It is all about what is more important, and to the judge in a court that is justice, if justice can be served with a delay, but be served then so it will be, if justice can not be done because time passes by then the court will do all it can to mitigate that.

This is especially true in cases like the one in question, where if this kind of ruling did not exist, the NBA would simply file case and appeal to to get what they wanted in the first place which is the suspension, right or wrong, I can not think of a judge who wants to allow that.

So in the end it is simple, either the judge rules tomorrow, or JO plays on Saturday.

Fool
12-22-2004, 04:47 PM
By Fool:

"That being said, I am happy for you guys as to the ruling and actually do hope that it sticks."

I am NOT HAPPY with the outcome AT ALL! We are talking 10 games on a total of more than 130 games that OUR players got suspended for, including an all-star DPOTY who won't be playing for us this year, it makes me feel sick, it makes me feel like we are there only to appear, hopefully win one series and than faaaaaaaaaaaade away in the 2nd round which is what we will do, because you are all diluding (sp?) yourselves IF you believe:
1) Bender will be able to play remaining season healthy (though I admit keep hoping he does) and
2) we won't miss Ron THAT much.
We simply do NOT have enough to go very far in the postseason.

"I don't want to see an incident like that happen again and I can't say that reducing the punishments makes it more likely to happen especially since the punishments in question only involves one of the two parties that participated in the incident anyway."

Well I welcome your aggreement that "the other side" has gotten off MUCH too lightly. Anyway, don't worry we are not mad at you anymore (atleast I'm not), but some of your other teams "fans" here are provoking and trying to rub it in.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Whoa there cowboy. I didn't say "the other side has gotten off MUCH too lightly". I said that the issue at hand (the suspensions and whether they are lightened) only effects one of the two participants of the fight. And as such I don't think it changes the likelihood of another fight happening between fans and players

As to being happy about the ruling. I can understand what you are saying. I guess I should have described my feelings better though. I only meant that I was happy to see that you guys would get to watch at least one of your players before you initially thought you would. I wasn't trying to comment on the ruling as a whole. If you were to ask me what I thought the ruling should be or if I was happy with the overall statement that it makes (and the effect it has) I would have to decline comment as I'm not looking invest the ammount of time necessary to make a decision on that. Its an ugly incident that I would rather look past then look into. (I would have to admit though that I am afforded that attitude because it did not have as obvious of an effect on my team as it did on yours.)

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 04:49 PM
There is no "forfeit" involved if the judge orders this solution, that would never hold up anywhere in any age in any place.

Really???

"Swift justice" has always been a hallmark of the NBA. I can't see anybody happy with the outcome that JO has to sit out ten more games in April/ May because the judge finally ruled/ appeals ran out...

My gut feeling is that if he's back, he's back for good. But if its under the cloak of an injunction allowing him to play while the appeals drag on, then its at the risk of forfeiting games that he played in when "Stern was right all along and JO was not eligible."

But we're back to where I think the judge will give a swift judgement tomorrow, so this won't be an issue.

able
12-22-2004, 05:00 PM
I agree on the expectation of swift, but....

Under no circumstances is the NBA allowed to play judge and juror over a court ruling.

IF the judge rules that JO can play while the case is pending, which is he does not decide immediately I am almos certain he will, the NBA has no rights to do anything whatsoever, if the choose to do so I have a feeling that the judge will interrupt his holiday and *****slap Stern so bad he will want another job immediately.

There already was a NFL example given above there are many more, the league may not like it, but will do nothing whatsoever, not while and not in retrospect, those are the rules they have to abide by when they go to court.

able
12-22-2004, 06:10 PM
I can not even be bothered to copy and paste this, this article are excerpts from the ruling, the thinking of Kaplan is so scary that I am dumbfounded.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/12/22/sports1646EST0419.DTL

Bball
12-22-2004, 06:17 PM
Here is the text of the article that frustrated Able.



Excepts from arbitrator's ruling on brawl suspensions

The Associated Press

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

(12-22) 13:46 PST (AP) --

Excerpts from arbitrator Roger Kaplan's ruling on an appeal of the suspensions issued by NBA commissioner David Stern to Indiana Pacers players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson for their roles in a brawl with fans at a Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons game. A copy of the ruling was obtained by The Associated Press.

On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

"By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."
"Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management. If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."
"The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."

On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

"The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. ... I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. He stated it was his concern that his teammates were safe and protected. Unfortunately, when O'Neal attempted to assist his teammate Johnson on the floor, he punched a spectator. When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood ... And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation."'
"O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. ... On balance, Commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."

On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

"Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. ... He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation. It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. The throwing of punches by an NBA player, whether those punches connect, reflects adversely on the NBA, the Pacers and Jackson himself. There was no justification for Jackson entering the stands unprovoked and pummeling spectators and fans. That conduct cannot be condoned. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."

On the response of security guards during the brawl:

"The union argued that the NBA's lack of security at the Pacers-Pistons game should be considered, and the alleged failure of the referees to bring the incident under control. ... In my view, even if these assertions could be established, and there is insufficient evidence to do so, I cannot conclude that this somehow excused the behavior of the grievants."

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 06:17 PM
I can not even be bothered to copy and paste this, this article are excerpts from the ruling, the thinking of Kaplan is so scary that I am dumbfounded.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/12/22/sports1646EST0419.DTLYou're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

http://m2.doubleclick.net/viewad/817-grey.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v3|31e9|0|0|%2a|b;44306;0-0;0;3553323;4307-300|250;0|0|0;;~sscs=%3f)

Anthem
12-22-2004, 06:42 PM
Interesting that Kaplan disagrees that Jax initially entered the stands as a peacemaker... I wish I had access to his video.

Kstat
12-22-2004, 06:45 PM
You're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

http://m2.doubleclick.net/viewad/817-grey.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v3|31e9|0|0|%2a|b;44306;0-0;0;3553323;4307-300|250;0|0|0;;~sscs=%3f)

it was.

Any ruling that didn't end with "artest and jackson can return on christmas" was going to be blasted in this forum. You know that.

I thought it was a very lucid argument for upholding their suspensions.

I also strongly agree with his ruling on JO.

My only question is this: do you STILL think Stern is out to get you? or is the arbitrator out to get the Pacers as well?

Bball
12-22-2004, 06:46 PM
Interesting that Kaplan disagrees that Jax initially entered the stands as a peacemaker... I wish I had access to his video.

I'd like to see that again as well. I didn't think SJax did anything physical until fans swarmed him and a drink thrown into his face.

I won't say whether SJax did or did not enter the stands as a peacemaker because my memory is that the Piston fans didn't give him a chance to make his intentions clear. With that frame of reference I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Apparently my memory is clouded or Kaplan saw something I did not.

-Bball

Kstat
12-22-2004, 06:49 PM
Having a drink thrown in your face does not give you the right to assault someone. I think that's the main theme here.

Jackson could have made his intentions known by DRAGGING ARETST AWAY from the fans, rather than jumping fist-first into the fray.A few glasses of beer wasn't going to hurt either of them.

I still think it appeared that Jackson WANTED to fight, he looked like he was almost getting enjoyment out of it. Rather than Oneal, who is an otherwise-good character, and Artest, who never thinks before he acts, Jackson seemed to be in the most clear situation of the three. He was in the best position by FAR to think clearly, and he acted the most reckless.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 06:51 PM
it was.

Any ruling that didn't end with "artest and jackson can return on christmas" was going to be blasted in this forum. You know that.

I thought it was a very lucid argument for upholding their suspensions.

I also strongly agree with his ruling on JO.

My only question is this: do you STILL think Stern is out to get you? or is the arbitrator out to get the Pacers as well?I know. I'd like to think that my fellow Pacers fans can take off thier blue-and-gold glasses, thier Stuck Fern t-shirts, etc., use thier heads, and think.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you're here, proving that *some* of "them" can, in fact, be more rational than certain of my own people. :flirt:

Kstat
12-22-2004, 06:56 PM
I know. I'd like to think that my fellow Pacers fans can take off thier blue-and-gold glasses, thier Stuck Fern t-shirts, etc., use thier heads, and think.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you're here, proving that *some* of "them" can, in fact, be more rational than certain of my own people. :flirt:

Yeah, thats what I don't get

The players went to a THIRD-PARTY, and he STILL held up these "ridiculous penalties." So your ONLY real beef with stern is the 10 extra games he gave JO. Everything else was ruled as perfectly fair.

You KNOW there will be "Fu*k Kaplar" shirts in the stands as well....... :D

able
12-22-2004, 06:59 PM
Well you asked for it, but it does not make me a happy bunny, though I still want to read the entire thing when I find it.
My remarks/opinion in between the quotes:




On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

"By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."

This alone is the essence of thinking for the remainder of the ruling, I am dumbfounded by this "logic" and in all honesty, there is NO logic in it, just a spoon-fed remark.

It is very easy to establish that this "happening" is nowhere near the worst "riot" in the history of sports, it is an affront that an arbitrator would even consider the wording.

It also ignores everything that happened before Ron went into the stands, a lack of understanding OR a manipulative reasoning, whatever way you explain that it lacks the factual foundation from what I witnessed. As I stated earlier when discussing this with Rim, Ron's going in the stands, however bad and wrong, is NOT what precipitated the riot, the riot was already going.

This "simple" opening kills the "expected" balanced ruling.


"Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management.

It is sad to see that the flagrants are counted against him, let's face the facts, he already was suspended for those, he paid his dues for that, the law should not know repeat punishment, it is also founded on thin air and nothing else.
Then to top it of, he cites 15 suspensions, of which 2 were not flagrant foul related, excluding the thought that some of those flagrants were not so deserved and that in one instance that I know of from the top of my head the league rescinded a flagrant, surely that makes the argument that they should count moot, not to mention that there is no defense against such things.

So two cases remain, one I can think of however, which is the "camera" case in New York, where I think it is very important that though this is anger-management related, there is NO history of Ron attacking people.
It is however overlooked and the unsuspecting reader might even think that Ron has a habit of beating people up, which is blatantly untrue.


If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."

Whether an argument is compelling or not is a sidebar issue, facts is what should rule a judgement, compelling circumstances come only in to play when there are either mitigating circumstances or alleviating circumstances.
The previous suspensions are not his case, they were dealt with, they are not even close to what happened here, and should therefore not count as much and bare as much gravity as they seemingly do at this moment.


"The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."


Indeed the similarities end with the punch Vernon Maxwell threw.
Ron never punched anyone before two idiots came on the court and attacked him, this almost makes me want to shout, get your facts straight!
What he in concreto says here is that Since the Maxwell punchup did not end up in a brawl/riot there is no simularity, that statement in itself is nonsense, what the Maxwell case shows is that public reactions are different and that the mob in Auburn Hills reacted different then most other fans would have done. That however is not something that can be the foundation under a 730% increase in punishment's severity.
It also fails to mention at any moment that Ron never hit the spectator in the stands, not once, something that WOULD make the comparison between Maxwell and Artest fail.



On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

"The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. ... I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. He stated it was his concern that his teammates were safe and protected.


Now, this is a reasoning I can support, because it also shows facts. Something I stated in a discussion on the topic early on and very true and important to the measurement of the punishment. I also believe that JO will not face any problems over getting that singular count of Assault kicked out of court.


Unfortunately, when O'Neal attempted to assist his teammate Johnson on the floor, he punched a spectator. When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood ... And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation."'

Again a reasoning I understand and that is factual and yes, those are a glimps of what people on the floor felt. (players and staff of the Pacers)



"O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. ... On balance, Commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."

Thought the reasoning above is sound, the last quote is simply ridiculous, in one sentence he praises JO for the community work and basically by omitting this in the other cases and especially Ron's he's saying the others (again especially Ron') do less worthy community work, IF this is a reasoning that should result in some form of leniency then why didn't he consider that when ruling on Ron?


On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

"Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. ... He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation.

Now it A says Jax lied, and B ignores completely the beverage that was throwin in his face and the aggresice stance the fans in front of him made, an immission in my opinion.
I have a harder time with this since I do feel that Jax was not the player that should have been there, he's to much a powderkeg himself, which showed.


It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. The throwing of punches by an NBA player, whether those punches connect, reflects adversely on the NBA, the Pacers and Jackson himself. There was no justification for Jackson entering the stands unprovoked and pummeling spectators and fans. That conduct cannot be condoned. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."

Again the reasoning behind this (the image of the NBA) are not that important as the "justification" I wholeheartedly disagree with "unprovoked and pummeling" since the video shows me different.
Yet, while Ron did not swing, he gets 73 games and Jax, here shown as someone who went in maliciously and with fists flying only gets 30, surely even mr. Kaplan can see that his reasoning here is somewhat short.


On the response of security guards during the brawl:

"The union argued that the NBA's lack of security at the Pacers-Pistons game should be considered, and the alleged failure of the referees to bring the incident under control. ... In my view, even if these assertions could be established, and there is insufficient evidence to do so, I cannot conclude that this somehow excused the behavior of the grievants."

This tops it all off, this is so ignorant of what actually happened, took place and allowed it to get out of control that one would almost consider thinking it was a Pistons employee speaking here.
So there is enough evidence to condemn Ron and the others, but not to see that the security is lacking?
So feeling threatened while doing your work is not a mitigating circumstance?
Sorry but this last quote leaves at least 100 questions and that is to much for now. All I can say that it is preposterous.


So there you have it, long, but reasoned, so please reason likewise in your answers.

PacerFanInBayAreaCali
12-22-2004, 07:22 PM
If Ben's as tough as you say - whoop anybody in the NBA, eat nails for breakfast, make Dale Davis cry, tough - shouldn't he have barely felt a thing?
Face it, Ben overreacted.

Haha...hell, you're gettin somewhere if you can even make Dale Davis smile!

Bball
12-22-2004, 07:25 PM
Having a drink thrown in your face does not give you the right to assault someone. I think that's the main theme here.

Actually, having a drink thrown in your face is assault... but that is beside the point.



Jackson could have made his intentions known by DRAGGING ARETST AWAY from the fans, rather than jumping fist-first into the fray.A few glasses of beer wasn't going to hurt either of them.

I'm just not sure SJax jumped 'fists first into the fray'. I'm not arguing that he was in the right and shouldn't be punished. I'm simply allowing a bit for mitigating circumstances. If he was throwing fists before the fans swarmed him and threw the drink in his face then my memory of the event is wrong.

I'm granting that the league had every right to suspend Artest for the season because his history is such that he put himself in that position. OTOH, if my memory is correct of the SJax incident then I could've seen reducing his sentence to something slightly less than it is currently. That would be based on the mitigating circumstances when taken in their totality. That does not mean I expected SJax to get 'time served'. Maybe a 5-10 game reduction.




I still think it appeared that Jackson WANTED to fight, he looked like he was almost getting enjoyment out of it.

I'm not going to try and read his mind and didn't see anything to make me think he was enjoying himself.

Perhaps if certain Piston fans had left him alone he would've grabbed Artest and this all been over? Woulda...coulda... shoulda...

My point is, I don't know his intentions and can't read his mind and as such I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

Kaplan had plenty of time to review things and apparently he saw it differently. The Pacers were in the wrong, tho they were reacting to Piston fans who also were in the wrong. One side happened to get punished more than the other.

I'm satisified that JO's penalty was reduced and hope the reduction ends up upheld.



Rather than Oneal, who is an otherwise-good character, and Artest, who never thinks before he acts, Jackson seemed to be in the most clear situation of the three. He was in the best position by FAR to think clearly, and he acted the most reckless.

I'm hoping the Pacers sever ties with Artest and we just move on. Regardless if it is thru a voided contract, allowing him to retire with our blessings, or a trade. The timebomb went off and Artest will never, ever, ever be able to receive the benefit of the doubt in any circumstances for years (if ever). And his association with the Pacers will surely pull that cloud over them as well.

-Bball

-Bball

canyoufeelit
12-22-2004, 07:25 PM
Jeez... able just dropped the hammer on this thread.

Bball
12-22-2004, 07:47 PM
Yeah, thats what I don't get

The players went to a THIRD-PARTY, and he STILL held up these "ridiculous penalties." So your ONLY real beef with stern is the 10 extra games he gave JO. Everything else was ruled as perfectly fair.


Actually, I'm sure some of the grumbling at its root isn't so much the Pacer punishments by themselves but is the balance struck between what the Pacers received in punishment as opposed to the Piston organization. IOW... a feeling that the Pacers were made scapegoats. (Of course if we want to go there then it is entirely plausible that Artest (and his rep) was the key piece to put us in that position.).

-Bball.

ChicagoJ
12-22-2004, 07:50 PM
Able, I may not have time to reply until tomorrow. But hopefully I will have time then...

shags
12-23-2004, 12:04 AM
First of all, I'm going to start off by agreeing that the Piston organization should have beared some responsibility for the reprehensible conduct of their fans. Some suggestions:

1. Fining the Pistons organization of all revenues from the November 19th game against the Pacers.
2. Fining the Pistons organization of all revenues from the March 25th game against the Pacers.
3. Banning alcohol sales at the Palace for the March 25th game and any future playoff games against the Pacers.

All three would suffice. There needs to be some accountability, and it's shortsighted to not think alcohol didn't have a role.

Secondly, able, I've got some questions for you:

I just watched a Pistons-Bulls game from 1988 on NBA TV today, and Rick Mahorn got into shoving matches with Charles Oakley and Dave Corzine.

Were those riots I just witnessed?

I remember watching a Pistons-Celtics game in the 80s where Dennis Rodman got fouled by Brad Lohaus on a fastbreak layup, and Rodman started punching him, landing at least 3 punches, before he was ejected.

Did Rodman incite a riot?

I think Kobe Bryant and Reggie Miller get into a shoving match a couple of years ago.

Was that a riot?

Able, you said "Ron's going into the stands, however bad and wrong, is NOT what precipitated the riot, the riot was already going." Huh? While I agree that this is not the worst incident in sports history, I figured with your soccer references that this may not be considered a riot by your definitions.

Ben Wallace overreacted and shoved Ron Artest in the face, before being separated by players, coaches, and officials. If that constitutes a riot, the Bad Boy Pistons had a riot every 3 or 4 games back in the day. While that doesn't happen all the time, it's not all that out of the ordinary. If that was it, it would have been over by the next day. The "riot" started when Ron Artest went into the stands (and yes, he was provoked, but had he not gone into the stands, nothing happens). All hell broke loose after that.

I thought Jermaine's suspension was too harsh from the get-go, and I'm disappointed, even as a Piston fan, that the organization didn't assume some responsibility for the actions of their fans. And all of those people who were throwing stuff at the Pacers in the tunnel should be banned from the Palace too. But I'm fine with the decision.

Anthem
12-23-2004, 04:14 AM
Just wanted to throw in a little more on Jax.

Now I tend towards the Bball / somebodyelse view that he originally entered the stands to go after Artest, and that he wasn't obnoxious on the court until a Piston (Hunter?) bumped him and started talking smack. But don't forget his quote from the beginning of the season... I knew something like this would happen.

"I'm going to knock somebody out for Jermaine O'Neal. I'm going to knock somebody out for Ron Artest."

I think Jax saw it partially as a family thing.

able
12-23-2004, 04:52 AM
Shags,

No matter what colour you show or wear, riot is a defined thing, I wil paste the dictionary's explanation below to help you along.

If you read it carefully you will see that I said that once the crowd started throwing things on to the players and court, a riot was born.
Ben's behaviour "might" have incited it, but it did not "start" the riot, it did not "define" the riot, however the exact same goes for Ron's going into the stands.

The riot was caused by a crowd getting out of control, which is what defines a riot to begin with, not by the acts of one person, the incinirator of the fire could well have been Ben's baheviour, but then we are going into behavioural science, which is not my area of expertise.

What I am saying and proving is that Ron REACTED to a riotous crowd and did NOT incite the riot.

And for the umpteenth time I do not condone what Ron did, however I can not judge it because I have never faced a crowd like that and felt attacked like that, therefore I look for points of reference in history and other "remotely related" cases to find a "standard" something the arbitrator should have done to, but failed to do.
In law you will find that a judge looks for those points of reference, and yes, hockey, baseball, football, soccer, it is all sports in front of large masses so therefore a perfect reference point, but no matter how hard I look, I can not find anything coming close to the "measure" taken in this case.

ri·ot Audio pronunciation of "riot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rt)
n.

1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. Law. A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.
3. An unrestrained outbreak, as of laughter or passions.
4. A profusion: The garden was a riot of colors in August.
5.
1. Unrestrained merrymaking; revelry.
2. Debauchery.
6. Slang. An irresistibly funny person or thing: Isn't she a riot?


v. ri·ot·ed, ri·ot·ing, ri·ots
v. intr.

1. To take part in a riot.
2. To live wildly or engage in uncontrolled revelry.


v. tr.

To waste (money or time) in wild or wanton living: “rioted his life out, and made an end” (Tennyson).


[Middle English, from Old French, dispute, from rioter, to quarrel, perhaps from ruire, to roar, from Latin rgre.]riot·er n.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

riot

see read the riot act; run amok (riot).

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: ri·ot
Function: noun
: a disturbance of the peace created by an assemblage of usually three or more people acting with a common purpose and in a violent and tumultuous manner to the terror of the public; also : the crime of rioting

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: riot
Function: intransitive verb
: to create or engage in a riot —ri·ot·er noun

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

riot

n 1: a public act of violence by an unruly mob [syn: public violence] 2: a state of disorder involving group violence [syn: rioting] 3: a joke that seems extremely funny [syn: belly laugh, sidesplitter, howler, thigh-slapper, scream, wow] 4: a wild gathering involving excessive drinking and promiscuity [syn: orgy, debauch, debauchery, saturnalia, bacchanal, bacchanalia, drunken revelry] v 1: take part in a riot; disturb the public peace by engaging in a riot; "Students were rioting everywhere in 1968" 2: engage in boisterous, drunken merry-making; "They were out carousing last night" [syn: carouse, roister]