Pacers were justified in going after fans
NBA encourages rowdy fans butdoes nothing when it goes too far
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Nov. 22, 2004
O.K., so he’s a knucklehead whose actions are almost impossible to defend.
But I’m going to give it a try anyway.
A Native American proverb states, “Don’t judge a man unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.” Doing so in Artest’s case may result in severe damage to one’s psychological well-being, but it’s necessary in order to explain why the Indiana Pacers’ nutbag had some justification for his offenses in the now-historic melee that earned him a suspension for the rest of the season — which, including time served (Saturday’s loss against Orlando) amounts to 73 games, plus playoffs — from an image-obsessed NBA.
If you noticed anything amid the flying beer cups and overweight Pistons fans attempting to fight world-class athletes, you should admit that Artest did not start the ruckus, and in fact, sought to remove himself from it.
Artest fouled Ben Wallace hard in the final minute of the Pacers’ win over the Pistons Friday night, but it was nothing out of the ordinary. Yet Wallace completely overreacted, shoving Artest hard and thereby instigating the drunken dullards in the seats. Wallace admitted he was wrong and even attempted to contact Artest afterward to apologize.
After the benches emptied and players milled around with typical but harmless post-incident posturing, Artest tried to remove himself from conflict and controversy by lying on the scorer’s table. Everything would have been fine if not for the actions of a few beer-guzzling louts who couldn’t leave well enough alone.
One of the aforementioned cretins hurled a cup of beer at Artest, causing him to jump off the table and rush into the seats, fists flailing.
I would have done the exact same thing.
I’m not proud of it. I don’t think violence is the answer. But again, walking a mile in Artest’s shoes? When all I did was foul someone hard, and Wallace blew his cool, instigating a brouhaha? When I’m trying to stay out of trouble, and someone from the stands assaults me? When the league is doing almost nothing to protect players from unruly fans?
You’re damn right I go into the stands, regardless of how much it may eventually cost me.
And if I’m in the shoes of Stephen Jackson, or Jermaine O’Neal, and I see one of my teammates being beaten up? I go up and help.
Now here’s a key point that should not be ignored.
The NBA takes a strident and unflinching stance on the issue of players going into the stands. No ifs, ands or buts. It is absolutely inexcusable, it says.
But David Stern and his minions make it sound as though there is a massive divide between the players on the court and the fans in the seats. In actuality, fans are only a few feet away. And that’s by design.
The league has a major selling point for the fans’ access to the action, as opposed to the arms-length arrangements in baseball, football and hockey. The clubs sell tickets at exorbitant rates just so beer-swilling jerks can sit close to the players and, at the very least, make vile comments. And at the very worst, inject themselves into the fray.
I don’t know if concession stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills shut off beer sales after the third quarter, like some venues. But it seems to me that there was no shortage of giant cups of brew in that game's final minute, judging by how much was thrown at players and team personnel.
The NBA condones the heavy drinking. It requires a skeleton crew of security men at its events. It invites fans to get as close to the action as possible. And then it breaks out the soapbox when the powderkeg goes off.
Artest and the other players certainly deserve suspensions. But the NBA’s hypocrisy is laughable. Stern and the league are as culpable as anyone.
Stern has an easy target in Artest, who recently caused an uproar when he cluelessly asked for time off from basketball so he could promote his R&B album. Stern views him as the Latrell Sprewell of the 21st century, someone he can demonize as ‘The Player Who Doesn’t Get It’.
But Sprewell was different. He attacked then-Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo after verbal provocation. And after he did, he had plenty of time to calm down. Yet he attacked a second time.
Artest was physically assaulted. His response was self-defense, even though it may not fit the classic definition.
To me, self-defense is this: If you attack me, I’m going to attack you back.
I bring up the Sprewell example because Artest’s suspension is Sprewell-esque. That ban was originally 82 games, but was later pared down to 68 by an arbitrator. So is the league suggesting that what Artest did is worse than what Sprewell did? Or is this just a case of the NBA covering its behind in the interests of polishing an image and keeping the revenue stream flowing?
The league professes a zero-tolerance policy on players going after fans in the stands. With these penalties — Jackson got 30 games and O’Neal 20 games, among others — it pretends to be doing the right thing.
Wrong.
What the league is doing is protecting the cash cow. It’s siding with the buying public against the players. It’s protecting itself against litigation by making believe that the problem is the players, and the problem is being dealt with. Yet by taking that approach, it is giving tacit approval to boorish actions by its customers in the future.
I’m not saying the NBA is condoning violence by the fans. I’m not suggesting it doesn’t want to see certain fans prosecuted for their actions in that brawl.
But the unusually heavy suspensions will serve as a smokescreen to obscure the league’s own responsibility here. What do you think are the chances that fans will be seated farther away from the action now on, which would discourage any such future incidents? How likely do you think it is that the league will insist beer sales be severely limited at its arenas, or discontinued altogether? What is the likelihood that security forces will be doubled from now on at all NBA games?
I have the answer for you: The status quo will remain in effect, because it’s easier to blame a small handful of wealthy, high-profile NBA players who can afford the fines and suspensions than it is to tackle the root causes of the problem.
This whole situation is embarrassing and appalling. The brawl was ugly, too.
[edit=229=1101164424][/edit]
[edit=229=1101164437][/edit]
[edit=229=1101164438][/edit]
NBA encourages rowdy fans butdoes nothing when it goes too far
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Nov. 22, 2004
O.K., so he’s a knucklehead whose actions are almost impossible to defend.
But I’m going to give it a try anyway.
A Native American proverb states, “Don’t judge a man unless you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.” Doing so in Artest’s case may result in severe damage to one’s psychological well-being, but it’s necessary in order to explain why the Indiana Pacers’ nutbag had some justification for his offenses in the now-historic melee that earned him a suspension for the rest of the season — which, including time served (Saturday’s loss against Orlando) amounts to 73 games, plus playoffs — from an image-obsessed NBA.
If you noticed anything amid the flying beer cups and overweight Pistons fans attempting to fight world-class athletes, you should admit that Artest did not start the ruckus, and in fact, sought to remove himself from it.
Artest fouled Ben Wallace hard in the final minute of the Pacers’ win over the Pistons Friday night, but it was nothing out of the ordinary. Yet Wallace completely overreacted, shoving Artest hard and thereby instigating the drunken dullards in the seats. Wallace admitted he was wrong and even attempted to contact Artest afterward to apologize.
After the benches emptied and players milled around with typical but harmless post-incident posturing, Artest tried to remove himself from conflict and controversy by lying on the scorer’s table. Everything would have been fine if not for the actions of a few beer-guzzling louts who couldn’t leave well enough alone.
One of the aforementioned cretins hurled a cup of beer at Artest, causing him to jump off the table and rush into the seats, fists flailing.
I would have done the exact same thing.
I’m not proud of it. I don’t think violence is the answer. But again, walking a mile in Artest’s shoes? When all I did was foul someone hard, and Wallace blew his cool, instigating a brouhaha? When I’m trying to stay out of trouble, and someone from the stands assaults me? When the league is doing almost nothing to protect players from unruly fans?
You’re damn right I go into the stands, regardless of how much it may eventually cost me.
And if I’m in the shoes of Stephen Jackson, or Jermaine O’Neal, and I see one of my teammates being beaten up? I go up and help.
Now here’s a key point that should not be ignored.
The NBA takes a strident and unflinching stance on the issue of players going into the stands. No ifs, ands or buts. It is absolutely inexcusable, it says.
But David Stern and his minions make it sound as though there is a massive divide between the players on the court and the fans in the seats. In actuality, fans are only a few feet away. And that’s by design.
The league has a major selling point for the fans’ access to the action, as opposed to the arms-length arrangements in baseball, football and hockey. The clubs sell tickets at exorbitant rates just so beer-swilling jerks can sit close to the players and, at the very least, make vile comments. And at the very worst, inject themselves into the fray.
I don’t know if concession stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills shut off beer sales after the third quarter, like some venues. But it seems to me that there was no shortage of giant cups of brew in that game's final minute, judging by how much was thrown at players and team personnel.
The NBA condones the heavy drinking. It requires a skeleton crew of security men at its events. It invites fans to get as close to the action as possible. And then it breaks out the soapbox when the powderkeg goes off.
Artest and the other players certainly deserve suspensions. But the NBA’s hypocrisy is laughable. Stern and the league are as culpable as anyone.
Stern has an easy target in Artest, who recently caused an uproar when he cluelessly asked for time off from basketball so he could promote his R&B album. Stern views him as the Latrell Sprewell of the 21st century, someone he can demonize as ‘The Player Who Doesn’t Get It’.
But Sprewell was different. He attacked then-Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo after verbal provocation. And after he did, he had plenty of time to calm down. Yet he attacked a second time.
Artest was physically assaulted. His response was self-defense, even though it may not fit the classic definition.
To me, self-defense is this: If you attack me, I’m going to attack you back.
I bring up the Sprewell example because Artest’s suspension is Sprewell-esque. That ban was originally 82 games, but was later pared down to 68 by an arbitrator. So is the league suggesting that what Artest did is worse than what Sprewell did? Or is this just a case of the NBA covering its behind in the interests of polishing an image and keeping the revenue stream flowing?
The league professes a zero-tolerance policy on players going after fans in the stands. With these penalties — Jackson got 30 games and O’Neal 20 games, among others — it pretends to be doing the right thing.
Wrong.
What the league is doing is protecting the cash cow. It’s siding with the buying public against the players. It’s protecting itself against litigation by making believe that the problem is the players, and the problem is being dealt with. Yet by taking that approach, it is giving tacit approval to boorish actions by its customers in the future.
I’m not saying the NBA is condoning violence by the fans. I’m not suggesting it doesn’t want to see certain fans prosecuted for their actions in that brawl.
But the unusually heavy suspensions will serve as a smokescreen to obscure the league’s own responsibility here. What do you think are the chances that fans will be seated farther away from the action now on, which would discourage any such future incidents? How likely do you think it is that the league will insist beer sales be severely limited at its arenas, or discontinued altogether? What is the likelihood that security forces will be doubled from now on at all NBA games?
I have the answer for you: The status quo will remain in effect, because it’s easier to blame a small handful of wealthy, high-profile NBA players who can afford the fines and suspensions than it is to tackle the root causes of the problem.
This whole situation is embarrassing and appalling. The brawl was ugly, too.
[edit=229=1101164424][/edit]
[edit=229=1101164437][/edit]
[edit=229=1101164438][/edit]
Comment