Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 176 to 200 of 200

Thread: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

  1. #176
    Banned Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,408

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  2. #177
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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."
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  3. #178
    All is full of Orange! Mourning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,987

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  4. #179
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  5. #180
    Banned Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,408

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Mourning
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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
    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.)

  6. #181
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  7. #182
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  8. #183
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.cg...646EST0419.DTL
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  9. #184
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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."

  10. #185
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by able
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.cg...646EST0419.DTL
    You're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  11. #186
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Interesting that Kaplan disagrees that Jax initially entered the stands as a peacemaker... I wish I had access to his video.

  12. #187
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,066

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay@Section204
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're gonna have to expand, I thought it was quite rational...

    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?

  13. #188
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthem
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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

  14. #189
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,066

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.

  15. #190
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  16. #191
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    28,066

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay@Section204
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    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.......

  17. #192
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  18. #193
    PacerFanInBayAreaCali
    Guest

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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!

  19. #194
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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

  20. #195
    canyoufeelit
    Guest

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Jeez... able just dropped the hammer on this thread.

  21. #196
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,101

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  22. #197
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    Able, I may not have time to reply until tomorrow. But hopefully I will have time then...
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  23. #198
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Side
    Posts
    4,177

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.

  24. #199
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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.

  25. #200
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: Arbitrator - Reduces JO's to 15 games

    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]
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •