http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...t_deserve_rip/
He doesn't deserve rip
Artest's intent should be judged
By Peter May, Globe Staff | April 19, 2004
(I added the picture)
INDIANAPOLIS -- Ron Artest has a busy 48 hours coming. Today, he will report to Conseco Fieldhouse for practice and then receive the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year Award. The league hasn't said anything official about the award, but it's a done deal.
Then, tomorrow night, he hopes to be in the starting lineup for the Pacers in Game 2 of their Eastern Conference playoff series with the Celtics, even though he had a slipup in Game 1 that has the Celtics calling for a suspension. That boo-boo has not drawn an official response from the league and, in this case, no news should be construed as good news.
The Celtics are calling for Artest's head because the rugged Pacers forward briefly left the bench during the Game 1 dust-up between Jermaine O'Neal, Brandon Hunter, and Ricky Davis. That is a no-no and, in a Burger Court, strict constructionist view of the league rules, would command a one-game suspension. The Celtics made sure the league was aware of Artest's transgression after their disappointing showing in Game 1 -- and the NBA went to the videotape.
Then, yesterday morning, Artest said he got a phone call from the NBA league office with the news that there would be no suspension. No one else on the Pacers was similarly informed and Artest may have been premature in his interpretation. There was nothing out of the league office to confirm the statement and NBA spokesman Tim Frank said yesterday that a decision should come today.
Yes, players who leave the bench during altercations can be suspended. And the importance of the game doesn't matter; witness the mass suspension of Knicks players during their playoff series with Miami a few years back. But Artest only briefly left the bench. He then turned around and went back to the bench. That was all.
"I went on the court just trying to warn Jermaine that they were about to send somebody out there to maybe get him going a little bit," Artest said yesterday. "When they started scuffling, I just went back to the bench."
Asked if he was relieved to have been absolved, Artest said, "Definitely. Nobody's trying to go out there and fight and start trouble. It's great that people realize that. They've got rules, but sometimes you gotta break the rules. Sometimes, you're not going out there to start trouble."
The Celtics, of course, disagree. Interim coach John Carroll passionately spoke yesterday to the letter of the law, undoubtedly knowing what the absence of Artest might do to impact Game 2. Then again, given the way the Celtics played in Game 1, it probably doesn't matter whether Artest plays or not.
Carroll called the league office and later said, "It's a rule. You can't leave the bench. You can't pick and choose the times you leave the bench. You don't know if the next time it's going to escalate. It's a very dangerous precedent."
I wouldn't go that far. And if you were to reverse the players -- substituting Paul Pierce for Artest -- the Celtics would be singing the same tune that Indy coach Rick Carlisle was singing yesterday. Namely that, yes, technically, Artest did something that could result in a suspension. But, at some point, you have to measure in other factors, such as intent and, in this case, Artest's immediate recognition that he had erred. When things devolve into partisanship, the wisest course is to do nothing.
"I heard the same thing happened with [Richard] Jefferson in New Jersey," Carlisle said, referencing a similar action in Game 1 of the Nets-Knicks series. "If you want to nitpick on technicalities, you can suspend these guys. If you want to look at it a little differently, and put benevolence and restraint ahead of technical issues, I could see it going the other way. That's up to the league."
Carlisle added, "[Artest] saw that Jermaine was in the process of being intentionally provoked into an ejection and his instinct was to go and pull him out so he didn't get ejected. Three steps out, he realized he wasn't supposed to be out there and got back. If it's judged on intent, he won't be suspended. If it's judged technically, he will. Frankly, neither decision would surprise me. I think it's possible it coud go either way."
Until NBA operations generalissimo Stu Jackson makes it official, Artest's status is in limbo. No one knows more than Artest what constitutes a suspendable offense. He instantly recognized the error of his ways, did something about it, and in no way affected what was happening on the floor.
That is good judgment, not behavior warranting a one-game suspension.
He doesn't deserve rip
Artest's intent should be judged
By Peter May, Globe Staff | April 19, 2004
(I added the picture)
INDIANAPOLIS -- Ron Artest has a busy 48 hours coming. Today, he will report to Conseco Fieldhouse for practice and then receive the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year Award. The league hasn't said anything official about the award, but it's a done deal.
Then, tomorrow night, he hopes to be in the starting lineup for the Pacers in Game 2 of their Eastern Conference playoff series with the Celtics, even though he had a slipup in Game 1 that has the Celtics calling for a suspension. That boo-boo has not drawn an official response from the league and, in this case, no news should be construed as good news.
The Celtics are calling for Artest's head because the rugged Pacers forward briefly left the bench during the Game 1 dust-up between Jermaine O'Neal, Brandon Hunter, and Ricky Davis. That is a no-no and, in a Burger Court, strict constructionist view of the league rules, would command a one-game suspension. The Celtics made sure the league was aware of Artest's transgression after their disappointing showing in Game 1 -- and the NBA went to the videotape.
Then, yesterday morning, Artest said he got a phone call from the NBA league office with the news that there would be no suspension. No one else on the Pacers was similarly informed and Artest may have been premature in his interpretation. There was nothing out of the league office to confirm the statement and NBA spokesman Tim Frank said yesterday that a decision should come today.
Yes, players who leave the bench during altercations can be suspended. And the importance of the game doesn't matter; witness the mass suspension of Knicks players during their playoff series with Miami a few years back. But Artest only briefly left the bench. He then turned around and went back to the bench. That was all.
"I went on the court just trying to warn Jermaine that they were about to send somebody out there to maybe get him going a little bit," Artest said yesterday. "When they started scuffling, I just went back to the bench."
Asked if he was relieved to have been absolved, Artest said, "Definitely. Nobody's trying to go out there and fight and start trouble. It's great that people realize that. They've got rules, but sometimes you gotta break the rules. Sometimes, you're not going out there to start trouble."
The Celtics, of course, disagree. Interim coach John Carroll passionately spoke yesterday to the letter of the law, undoubtedly knowing what the absence of Artest might do to impact Game 2. Then again, given the way the Celtics played in Game 1, it probably doesn't matter whether Artest plays or not.
Carroll called the league office and later said, "It's a rule. You can't leave the bench. You can't pick and choose the times you leave the bench. You don't know if the next time it's going to escalate. It's a very dangerous precedent."
I wouldn't go that far. And if you were to reverse the players -- substituting Paul Pierce for Artest -- the Celtics would be singing the same tune that Indy coach Rick Carlisle was singing yesterday. Namely that, yes, technically, Artest did something that could result in a suspension. But, at some point, you have to measure in other factors, such as intent and, in this case, Artest's immediate recognition that he had erred. When things devolve into partisanship, the wisest course is to do nothing.
"I heard the same thing happened with [Richard] Jefferson in New Jersey," Carlisle said, referencing a similar action in Game 1 of the Nets-Knicks series. "If you want to nitpick on technicalities, you can suspend these guys. If you want to look at it a little differently, and put benevolence and restraint ahead of technical issues, I could see it going the other way. That's up to the league."
Carlisle added, "[Artest] saw that Jermaine was in the process of being intentionally provoked into an ejection and his instinct was to go and pull him out so he didn't get ejected. Three steps out, he realized he wasn't supposed to be out there and got back. If it's judged on intent, he won't be suspended. If it's judged technically, he will. Frankly, neither decision would surprise me. I think it's possible it coud go either way."
Until NBA operations generalissimo Stu Jackson makes it official, Artest's status is in limbo. No one knows more than Artest what constitutes a suspendable offense. He instantly recognized the error of his ways, did something about it, and in no way affected what was happening on the floor.
That is good judgment, not behavior warranting a one-game suspension.
Comment