David Stern on the Dan Patrick show today 5/16

[judaspriestess]

anyone have access to it online and post a transcript??

Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann were discussing the ruling against the suns.
Dan Patrick was discussing the ruling and brought up the harshness of the ruling and how it was going to affect the series.

David Stern replies, "No Dan you know what is going to AFFECT the series, players knowing the rules, not being able to have self-control and their coaches not being able to control them either, thats whats going to hurt the series, AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!!"

David Stern also mentioned that he was open to having discussions of having the rule changed but it stands the way it is now.

anyone else hear it this morning? Thats priceless!!

Its done, deal with it people!!

Please see exact quote below

[timvp]

"No Dan you know what is going to AFFECT the series, players knowing the rules, not being able to have self-control and their coaches not being able to control them either, thats whats going to hurt the series,[B] AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT!!"

Yeah, something that isn't being mentioned is D'Antoni and the assistant coaches shouldn't have sprinted to the action. Every other coaching staff in the league knows that the first thing you do is make sure no player moves from the bench area.

D'Antoni and the rest of the assistant coaches choked when they didn't follow rule number one.

[Taco]

wow

[duncan228]

I have this much.

Posted on True Hoop a little while ago.

http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop

David Stern on Dan Patrick's Show

May 16, 2007 2:45 PM


ESPN Insiders can hear the whole thing here. Stern is not charming -- always been a bully, that one -- but he is not, it strikes me, wrong, either.

Some key Stern quotes:

There is no way to know if someone is running out on the court as friend or foe. When Rudy Tomjanovich was running out to see what was going on and trying to break up a fight, his face was forever changed. ...

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?

I'm unhappy with the result. If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me. I'd be very happy to do it. But to listen to the palaver that Robert Horry changed the series is just silly. What changed the series is that Amare and Boris ran out onto the court.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

[mabber]

Yeah, just heard the replay of it. Regardless of who you think is right or not, Stern really came across as a dick.

[judaspriestess]

I have this much.

Posted on True Hoop a little while ago.

http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop

David Stern on Dan Patrick's Show

May 16, 2007 2:45 PM


ESPN Insiders can hear the whole thing here. Stern is not charming -- always been a bully, that one -- but he is not, it strikes me, wrong, either.

Some key Stern quotes:

There is no way to know if someone is running out on the court as friend or foe. When Rudy Tomjanovich was running out to see what was going on and trying to break up a fight, his face was forever changed. ...

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?
I'm unhappy with the result. If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me. I'd be very happy to do it. But to listen to the palaver that Robert Horry changed the series is just silly. What changed the series is that Amare and Boris ran out onto the court.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

:clap Thanks for posting this is important!!

[degenerate_gambler]

Yeah, something that isn't being mentioned is D'Antoni and the assistant coaches shouldn't have sprinted to the action. Every other coaching staff in the league knows that the first thing you do is make sure no player moves from the bench area.

D'Antoni and the rest of the assistant coaches choked when they didn't follow rule number one.


the assistant coaches were caught up in the game.

if you watch Mark Iavaroni's face...he starts to smile when he knows Nash is going to get fouled and go to the line (game over, he's thinking)...

then the fucker's eyes and mouth open like the Red Sea when Horry knocks Nash into the table....

he starts walking over to Nash before he catches himself and only then turns to look for players coming off the bench.

[sunsbum]

all i heard was a defensive bumbling idiot admitting they were wrong yet sticking to the rule. the guy is so scared of his ruling he cancled his courtside to phx because of a "cold" and he was "tired".

lol

[ChumpDumper]

Stern is a dick.

And Stern is the man.

[mabber]

I have this much.

Posted on True Hoop a little while ago.

http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop

David Stern on Dan Patrick's Show

May 16, 2007 2:45 PM


ESPN Insiders can hear the whole thing here. Stern is not charming -- always been a bully, that one -- but he is not, it strikes me, wrong, either.

Some key Stern quotes:

There is no way to know if someone is running out on the court as friend or foe. When Rudy Tomjanovich was running out to see what was going on and trying to break up a fight, his face was forever changed. ...

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?

I'm unhappy with the result. If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me. I'd be very happy to do it. But to listen to the palaver that Robert Horry changed the series is just silly. What changed the series is that Amare and Boris ran out onto the court.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

:lol Who is he trying to fool. It's all about the image of the league.

[degenerate_gambler]

Yeah, just heard the replay of it. Regardless of who you think is right or not, Stern really came across as a dick.



he usually does...

a condescending, arrogant, defensive one at that.

[T Park]

all i heard was a defensive bumbling idiot admitting they were wrong yet sticking to the rule

needs a hearing aid forum

[timvp]

the assistant coaches were caught up in the game.

if you watch Mark Iavaroni's face...he starts to smile when he knows Nash is going to get fouled and go to the line (game over, he's thinking)...

then the fucker's eyes and mouth open like the Red Sea when Horry knocks Nash into the table....

he starts walking over to Nash before he catches himself and only then turns to look for players coming off the bench.

Exactly.

Watch what every other team does when there is an altercation on the court. Within a second, the assistant coaches jump up and hold the players back.

Instead, Nash pulled his spread eagle drama queen maneuver to sell it, D'Antoni runs over like he's going to do something and the assistant coaches join the fray.

The Suns have no one to blame but themselves.

[judaspriestess]

all i heard was a defensive bumbling idiot admitting they were wrong yet sticking to the rule. the guy is so scared of his ruling he cancled his courtside to phx because of a "cold" and he was "tired".

lol

dude take off your rose colored glasses!! :rolleyes

[mabber]

he usually does...

a condescending, arrogant, defensive one at that.

Yeah, it's annoying that he takes all the credit for anything positive about the league but totally distances & deflects to the owners in situations like the suspensions. He must have mentioned that it's the owners rule at least 5 times during that interview :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Gosh, the Commissioner just demanded that players be accountable for their bad choices and applied a rule even-handedly, without regard to the identities of the players involved.

What a dick.

[AFBlue]

One thing I admire about Stern is his conviction. He does what he feels is right, even in the face of public scrutiny.

[sunsbum]

dude take off your rose colored glasses!! :rolleyes


GO LISTEN TO IT, HE ADMITTED THE RULING NEEDED CHANGES....i didnt say it HE DID. so maybe he should take of his.

[ChumpDumper]

GO LISTEN TO IT, HE ADMITTED THE RULING NEEDED CHANGES....i didnt say it HE DID. so maybe he should take of his.
Not really:

"If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me."

Doubtful anyone but Sarver is going to give a shit this summer.

[mabber]

Gosh, the Commissioner just demanded that players be accountable for their bad choices and applied a rule even-handedly, without regard to the identities of the players involved.

What a dick.

Wasn't saying he came across as a dick because of what he said, but how he said it. He was a total dick to Dan Patrick the entire interview.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Wasn't saying he came across as a dick because of what he said, but how he said it. He was a total dick to Dan Patrick the entire interview.

People are questioning the integrity of the league which he has run for 20 years...would you be sunshine and lollipops?

[sunsbum]

Gosh, the Commissioner just demanded that players be accountable for their bad choices and applied a rule even-handedly, without regard to the identities of the players involved.

What a dick.


yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?

i mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.

[Amare_32]

People are questioning the integrity of the league which he has run for 20 years...would you be sunshine and lollipops?

What integrity?

[Amare_32]

yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?

i mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.




:clap

[mFFL03]

david stern proved again in a public interview why he needs to be let go

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

david stern proved again in a public interview why he needs to be let go

Did you mention that as he was presenting Dirk his MVP trophy?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

What integrity?

If the league is so bad, why do you support it or its advertisers?

[judaspriestess]

yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?

i mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.

the players on the BENCH did not leave it during that foul. WTF don't you get. Your teams coaches SUCK. its not ass backwards you are

[Amare_32]

I don't buy for a second that he has no room for leeway with the rule. The Board of Govenors basically allow him and Jackson to do as they please. I doubt they would have said anything if he decided not to give suspensions.

[mabber]

People are questioning the integrity of the league which he has run for 20 years...would you be sunshine and lollipops?

So that makes it ok to be a total dick to a guy just doing his job? Dan Patrick didn't ask anything that the entire nation didn't want to be asked. DP show much constraint as I'd have been pissed off if I was being talked to that way.

[monosylab1k]

If he's bitch-slapping Dan Patrick, then he's my hero.

Stern may be a dick, but he just got done handing the biggest dick in sports journalism his ass on a platter. Go Stern.

[sunsbum]

the players on the BENCH did not leave it during that foul. WTF don't you get. Your teams coaches SUCK. its not ass backwards you are


keep looking the other way, ive conveniently placed the shit under your nose and you still pretend like you cant smell it.

[Trainwreck2100]

yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?

i mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.


The rule's inherent flaws are it wording and the fact that unlike flagrant fouls after it is broken it is an automatic suspension FF dont carry auto suspensions even Flag. 2. Here's a thought, next time somebody takes out your boy with a hard foul, don't vigilante and race the court, wait for the next time the offender is on the court hard foul him. That's the way it was done in the old days.

[leemajors]

keep looking the other way, ive conveniently placed the shit under your nose and you still pretend like you cant smell it.

you handle poop.

[George Gervin's Afro]

GO LISTEN TO IT, HE ADMITTED THE RULING NEEDED CHANGES....i didnt say it HE DID. so maybe he should take of his.


I heard the interview and he never said the rule needed to be change you dummy. what he said was if the owners wanted to visit it after the season he would be more than willing to. he went on to say that EVRYONE knows the rule and it is very clear. Stern poked holes through arguments presented by Patrick. Patrick brought up that these were marquee players..so stern replied should they caveat the rule to include only scrubs? Patrick backed off. Then intent came up. The players did not intend to fight or escalate the situation. The Stern replied well then now we must caveat the rule to judge intent of players who leave the bench during a fight but then have to verify oif they are a scrub or a marquee player..

[ducks]

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change.

[ChumpDumper]

So that makes it ok to be a total dick to a guy just doing his job?Sure. It's not like there's a rule against it and he could be suspended if he knowingly disobeys it.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

DP show much constraint as I'd have been pissed off if I was being talked to that way.

That's probably why you're not a journalist.

They teach us to never become part of the story. We deal with crap attitudes all the time.

[judaspriestess]

If he's bitch-slapping Dan Patrick, then he's my hero.

Stern may be a dick, but he just got done handing the biggest dick in sports journalism his ass on a platter. Go Stern.

From what I understand, Dan Patrick was pretty stunned. :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

From what I understand, Dan Patrick was pretty stunned. :lol

Patrick backtracked at every turn..

[tlongII]

That rule simply HAS to be changed! Stern talks about the rule making sure "no player gets hurt or killed" when there was nothing remotely close to that happening in this instance. Diaw and Stoudemire checked themselves quickly and didn't get near the altercation. Just a ridiculous ruling in my opinion.

[judaspriestess]

keep looking the other way, ive conveniently placed the shit under your nose and you still pretend like you cant smell it.


LOL :lol :drunk

The series is NOT over yet.

[ChumpDumper]

That rule simply HAS to be changed!To what?

[leemajors]

So that makes it ok to be a total dick to a guy just doing his job? Dan Patrick didn't ask anything that the entire nation didn't want to be asked. DP show much constraint as I'd have been pissed off if I was being talked to that way.

i thought patrick sounded totally unprepared for any sort of counter argument. he should have had a better gameplan for dealing with someone way more intelligent than he is, and much better versed in league matters. i like patrick's show, but he really had no leg to stand on with his arguments.

[FromWayDowntown]

Wasn't saying he came across as a dick because of what he said, but how he said it. He was a total dick to Dan Patrick the entire interview.

"Pretty please with sugar on top, shut the fuck up" would have been better, I guess?

Stern has every reason to be upset at this point. The media has adopted the Suns as darlings -- the only hope to avoid the tragedy of the Spurs reaching the Finals again -- and is chirping in near unanimity about the unfairness of this suspension.

The truth is, a contrary conclusion would have been more unfair, given the league's history in enforcing that rule.

In an era where Stern is having to refute more and more suggestions that his league is fixed, he's now taking on a media that, in essence, wants the league to change rules in midstream to accomplish something akin to a fix. If I was Commissioner Stern, I'd be pretty pissed too.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"Pretty please with sugar on top, shut the fuck up" would have been better, I guess?

Stern has every reason to be upset at this point. The media has adopted the Suns as darlings -- the only hope to avoid the tragedy of the Spurs reaching the Finals again -- and is chirping in near unanimity about the unfairness of this suspension.

The truth is, a contrary conclusion would have been more unfair, given the league's history in enforcing that rule.

In an era where Stern is having to refute more and more suggestions that his league is fixed, he's now taking on a media that, in essence, wants the league to change rules in midstream to accomplish something akin to a fix. If I was Commissioner Stern, I'd be pretty pissed too.

Stern got pissed and stopped Patrick when he said "Horry negatively" affected the series. Stern rightfully said to stop with the crap and reminded Patrick that the 2 Suns players affetced the series by getting up. Stern also refuted the "well their emotional guys who had seen Nash beaten up all series" by stating there were 7 people on the bench and 5 managed to stay of the court..

[monosylab1k]

From what I understand, Dan Patrick was pretty stunned. :lol

Awesome! Seriously, I dunno how many times that asshole will launch baseless attacks at someone he's interviewing and then stand back and innocently wonder why they're getting upset. It's nice to see him get it shoved back in his face.

[Amare_32]

"Pretty please with sugar on top, shut the fuck up" would have been better, I guess?

Stern has every reason to be upset at this point. The media has adopted the Suns as darlings -- the only hope to avoid the tragedy of the Spurs reaching the Finals again -- and is chirping in near unanimity about the unfairness of this suspension.

The truth is, a contrary conclusion would have been more unfair, given the league's history in enforcing that rule.

In an era where Stern is having to refute more and more suggestions that his league is fixed, he's now taking on a media that, in essence, wants the league to change rules in midstream to accomplish something akin to a fix. If I was Commissioner Stern, I'd be pretty pissed too.

No Stern brought this on himself with his inconsistent rulings. JRich no suspension but Horry 2 games. Baron Davis avoids suspension for a cheapshot on Fisher but Amare and Diaw get suspended for a normal reaction to check on Nash. Bowen knees Amare and then kicks Nash in the groin and Stern does nothing. If he were consistent with it I would not have such a problem with any of this.

[FromWayDowntown]

You can say a lot of things about David Stern, both positive and negative. One thing you cannot say about the man is that he is anything but brilliant. He's Clintonian in some senses with his intelligence -- I think he can be polarizing because he can draw some rather fine lines sometimes -- but he's undoubtedly the smartest guy in the room on most days of his existence.

[mabber]

"Pretty please with sugar on top, shut the fuck up" would have been better, I guess?

Stern has every reason to be upset at this point. The media has adopted the Suns as darlings -- the only hope to avoid the tragedy of the Spurs reaching the Finals again -- and is chirping in near unanimity about the unfairness of this suspension.

The truth is, a contrary conclusion would have been more unfair, given the league's history in enforcing that rule.

In an era where Stern is having to refute more and more suggestions that his league is fixed, he's now taking on a media that, in essence, wants the league to change rules in midstream to accomplish something akin to a fix. If I was Commissioner Stern, I'd be pretty pissed too.

It's somewhat funny that everyone on here is on Stern's side for the first time EVER. I wonder why? :lol

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So since the norm is not to suspend people for F2s, are Suns fans now basing their attacks of unfairness by Stern on the fact that Horry was suspended two games?

[FromWayDowntown]

No Stern brought this on himself with his inconsistent rulings. JRich no suspension but Horry 2 games. Baron Davis avoids suspension for a cheapshot on Fisher but Amare and Diaw get suspended for a normal reaction to check on Nash. Bowen knees Amare and then kicks Nash in the groin and Stern does nothing. If he were consistent with it I would not have such a problem with any of this.

Wait -- I thought Bowen kicked Amare and kneed Nash in the groin.

Can't you people keep your stories straight?

He was certainly consistent in the application of the "don't leave the benches if there's an altercation" rule. It's not remotely the same as the Davis incident, because the rule governing the Davis incident didn't compel a suspension. The rule governing the Amare/Diaw incident did compel a suspension. It's pretty simple.

[mardigan]

It's somewhat funny that everyone on here is on Stern's side for the first time EVER. I wonder why? :lol
And its funny how everyone that hates the Spurs thinks that the Suns players got fucked, I wonder why? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

No Stern brought this on himself with his inconsistent rulings. JRich no suspension but Horry 2 games. Baron Davis avoids suspension for a cheapshot on Fisher but Amare and Diaw get suspended for a normal reaction to check on Nash. Bowen knees Amare and then kicks Nash in the groin and Stern does nothing. If he were consistent with it I would not have such a problem with any of this.Make sure Amare and Boris commit infractions that don't have zero tolerance enforcement next time.

[Amare_32]

Make sure Amare and Boris commit infractions that don't have zero tolerance enforcement next time.

Your right next time they should take a cheapshot on Parker. They might get off with no penalty.

[mabber]

And its funny how everyone that hates the Spurs thinks that the Suns players got fucked, I wonder why? :lol

I'm pulling for the Spurs :rolleyes I have much money on the Spurs winning this series and the title.

The only people that don't think the Suns got screwed are the Spurs fans.

[monosylab1k]

LMAO what will happen on this board if the Suns actually win tonight?

[monosylab1k]

Your right next time they should take a cheapshot on Parker. They might get off with no penalty.

or a 2 game suspension

[ChumpDumper]

Your right next time they should take a cheapshot on Parker. They might get off with no penalty.Probably not now, but it is no surprise you are condoning cheap shots.

[mabber]

LMAO what will happen on this board if the Suns actually win tonight?

That's an easy one...it will be the refs fault. :lol

[LilMissSPURfect]

playoffs without the ref drama would be much appreciated

[FromWayDowntown]

It's somewhat funny that everyone on here is on Stern's side for the first time EVER. I wonder why? :lol

I'm almost always on the Commissioner's side. As I've watched more and more basketball, I've come to appreciate that the man generally does a great job with his league.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I'm pulling for the Spurs :rolleyes I have much money on the Spurs winning this series and the title.

The only people that don't think the Suns got screwed are the Spurs fans.

And respected journalists.

And former NBA Champions and MVPs.

[mabber]

I'm almost always on the Commissioner's side. As I've watched more and more basketball, I've come to appreciate that the man generally does a great job with his league.

Then you're in the minority. All I've ever read on this board is complete hatred for Stern (until today).

[ChumpDumper]

I'm almost always on the Commissioner's side. As I've watched more and more basketball, I've come to appreciate that the man generally does a great job with his league.Same here. He has made mistakes, but there hasn't been a more effective commissioner in pro sports in the past couple of decades.

[mabber]

And respected journalists.

And former NBA Champions and MVPs.

So there's only about 3 of those? 90% of the articles I've read have said the rule is ridiculous.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So there's only about 3 of those? 90% of the articles I've read have said the rule is ridiculous.

What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

[kskonn]

yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?

i mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.


I agree, it is a horrible rule and makes no sense. it is shitty that these guys are getting suspended. What I don't agree with is how everyone is blaming this on the spurs, maybe not you but the national media and others.The spurs did not make the rule, they did not enforce the rule. They did not petition the leauge to have them suspended. truth be told, if it was up to the spurs they would probably be playing. I am just sick of everyone making it sound like this was all master planned by the spurs and that they are the reason the players are suspended. They are not the reason the players not following the rule(a flawed horrible rule) are the reason.

[monosylab1k]

So there's only about 3 of those? 90% of the articles I've read have said the rule is ridiculous.

Jemele Hill wrote an article in support of the suspensions.

But after she wrote the "Kobe is better than Jordan" article I think it's a major stretch to call her a respected journalist.

[mabber]

Same here. He has made mistakes, but there hasn't been a more effective commissioner in pro sports in the past couple of decades.

I've never had any problem with how the guy ran the league. I just pointed out earlier that he acted like a dick in that interview.

[nkdlunch]

Exactly.

Watch what every other team does when there is an altercation on the court. Within a second, the assistant coaches jump up and hold the players back.

Instead, Nash pulled his spread eagle drama queen maneuver to sell it, D'Antoni runs over like he's going to do something and the assistant coaches join the fray.

The Suns have no one to blame but themselves.

like I said before, if you can watch frame by frame Avaroni's reaction to the hit on Nash. :lmao that face is priceless

[ChumpDumper]

So there's only about 3 of those? 90% of the articles I've read have said the rule is ridiculous.Where were all these journalists the decade before yesterday?

[ChumpDumper]

I've never had any problem with how the guy ran the league. I just pointed out earlier that he acted like a dick in that interview.I have trouble recalling a time he didn't act like a dick.

[nkdlunch]

99% of media might say rule is stupid. But 0% of owners will ever bring up the case to change it. no owner would do this, beleive me.

[mabber]

What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

So you really like the way that rule is written? I'm not arguing the suspensions as they should have been suspended based on how that rule is written.

[sunsbum]

99% of media might say rule is stupid. But 0% of owners will ever bring up the case to change it. no owner would do this, beleive me.
believe you? and what leg do you have to stand on?

[ChumpDumper]

So you really like the way that rule is written? I'm not arguing the suspensions as they should have been suspended based on how that rule is written.I don't see a reason to change it anymore than it already has been.

[Amare_32]

So you really like the way that rule is written? I'm not arguing the suspensions as they should have been suspended based on how that rule is written.

It needs a provision for certain circumstances.

[ChumpDumper]

It needs a provision for certain circumstances.What circumstances?

[DePastino]

To what?

As I've said before, the wording needs to be changed to allow for some leniency in the event that the player leaving the bench doesn't get involved in the "altercation". I don't see how this would diminish it's impact.

I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone. More likely, they impulsively reacted to the hard foul, which then escalated into an "altercation".

In the space of a few seconds, it went from "WTF? He just clobbered my point guard!" to "Oh crap, it's a fight! I need to get out of here."

By then, it was too late.

As the rule stands now, it was correctly enforced.

[ChumpDumper]

As I've said before, the wording needs to be changed to allow for some leniency in the event that the player leaving the bench doesn't get involved in the "altercation". I don't see how this would diminish it's impact.

I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone. More likely, they impulsively reacted to the hard foul, which then escalated into an "altercation".So how will players running onto the court signal their intent to the league?

Fax?

Email?

Candygram?

[monosylab1k]

It would be a whole lot easier for coaches to make sure their players are smart enough to obey the rule as written than it would be to try and rewrite the rule into some nebulous mess.

[degenerate_gambler]

Same here. He has made mistakes, but there hasn't been a more effective commissioner in pro sports in the past couple of decades.


I still believe he's an arrogant little prick, but outside of Pete Rozelle, you're right.

[mabber]

I don't see a reason to change it anymore than it already has been.

So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney.

[ThomasGranger]

As I've said before, the wording needs to be changed to allow for some leniency in the event that the player leaving the bench doesn't get involved in the "altercation". I don't see how this would diminish it's impact.

I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone.

So, you don't have a problem with the way the rule was enforced, but you're in favor of amending the rule so that there is more room for interpretation, more subjectivity, correct?

[T Park]

I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone


How do you know? You live in their heads?

[ChumpDumper]

I propose the rule changes to allow the player to perhaps step onto the court during an altercation since it may be the natural result of jumping up or being pushed from behind a little, but if they move away from the bench area toward the altercation, they should be fined and suspended one game.

[FromWayDowntown]

So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney.

They could have written a rule that didn't impose an automatic one game suspension for its violation.

They could have, but they didn't.

[T Park]

So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney

if they leave the bench during an altercation, then no I wouldn't be.

Rule is a rule.

Deal with it.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So you really like the way that rule is written? I'm not arguing the suspensions as they should have been suspended based on how that rule is written.

Actually, I stand by my initial statement when this whole thing broke.

Letter of the rule: Suspensions.

Spirit of the rule: Talking to, minimal fine.

[ChumpDumper]

So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? Yes. They know the rules.
It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? Considering why the rule is there in the first place, no.
I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation?I haven't heard one good suggestion yet.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney.

If they were to break the rule, then yes, I'd be fine with that.

Now show me the altercation in the second quarter.

[Amare_32]

So, you don't have a problem with the way the rule was enforced, but you're in favor of amending the rule so that there is more room for interpretation, more subjectivity, correct?


No it needs to be applied with more common sense. These players are not robots. They saw thier point guard go down with a cheapshot. At the very least the rule should allow for them to show some reaction. If they compose themselves and get back to the bench let it be.

[ChumpDumper]

No it needs to be applied with more common sense. These players are not robots. They saw thier point guard go down with a cheapshot. At the very least the rule should allow for them to show some reaction.It does.

[DePastino]

So how will players running onto the court signal their intent to the league?

Fax?

Email?

Candygram?

Doesn't matter. Amare was intending to do "something" but he was restrained and never made it out there.

The league can't assume that his intent was hostile any more than it can assume it was to be a peace maker or just see what had happened to Nash.

The player should be assumed to be a non-participant until he actually participates.

[MadDog73]

Of course most Spurs fans would be decrying the decision if the situation was reverse...

and most Suns fans would be supporting it.

Again, that would not change the fact: Stern runs the NBA tight. As basketball fans, we have to deal.

[mabber]

If they were to break the rule, then yes, I'd be fine with that.

Now show me the altercation in the second quarter.

I never even brought that up.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I never even brought that up.

You just happened to choose Duncan and Bowen?

[Amare_32]

It does.

Stern said otherwise. He said the rule is automatic with the suspension.

[ChumpDumper]

Doesn't matter. Amare was intending to do "something" but he was restrained and never made it out there.After leaving the bench area.
The league can't assume that his intent was hostile any more than it can assume it was to be a peace maker or just see what had happened to Nash.Exactly, that's why he's supended.
The player should be assumed to be a non-participant until he actually participates.Leaving the bench area is participating.

[ChumpDumper]

Stern said otherwise. He said the rule is automatic with the suspension.Go read the rule. There is already enough leeway for "a reaction."

[duncan228]

Candygram?

OMG I'm still laughing.
You must be as old as I am to quote that!
Good times! :spin

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Of course most Spurs fans would be decrying the decision if the situation was reverse...

and most Suns fans would be supporting it.

Again, that would not change the fact: Stern runs the NBA tight. As basketball fans, we have to deal.

Actually, most people on here were fully expecting Duncan to be suspended for one game following his incident and statements about Joey Crawford .

[SpursWoman]

If he's bitch-slapping Dan Patrick, then he's my hero.

Stern may be a dick, but he just got done handing the biggest dick in sports journalism his ass on a platter. Go Stern.


Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?

Because that was great, too. :lol

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?

Because that was great, too. :lol

I think that was Jim Gray.

[FromWayDowntown]

No it needs to be applied with more common sense. These players are not robots. They saw thier point guard go down with a cheapshot. At the very least the rule should allow for them to show some reaction. If they compose themselves and get back to the bench let it be.

But, as Stern said, the point of the rule -- as it currently exists -- is to make sure that there are no grey areas. If a player is on the floor engaged in an altercation and sees a guy in another jersey come towards him, he: (1) doesn't know if that guy was on the floor before the incident or not; and (2) might be inclined to Tomjanovich the guy, which is likely to only exacerbate an already bad situation.

The best way to avoid aggravation is to keep everyone on or near the bench. The league's owners decided, when they made the rule, that there should be no grey area when it came to punishment. Break the rule and you're suspended. Now that Suns fans (and the national media that adores them) are realizing what the effects of the rule are, there's a sudden clamor to change the rule. That's fine, if the owners think it's reasonable. But for now, the rule is the rule is the rule.

[judaspriestess]

LMAO what will happen on this board if the Suns actually win tonight?


Spurs fans know this series is far from over, lay off the crack pipe.

[mabber]

You just happened to choose Duncan and Bowen?

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.

[DePastino]

So, you don't have a problem with the way the rule was enforced, but you're in favor of amending the rule so that there is more room for interpretation, more subjectivity, correct?

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

[laser2kgt]

dan patrick is a fucking dumbass. way to go stern...

:elephant

[judaspriestess]

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

you're grasping at straws dude

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

I agree with that. But I also agree with Stu Jackson's contention this morning that 20-25 feet from the bench is not within the vicinity of the bench.


Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

His incentive to back off is the possibility of even harsher penalties. The Artest precedent still looms and I don't think it's inconceivable that the league would impose that sort of a penalty upon a player who leaves the bench and starts throwing punches at guys in opposing jerseys. It might not be 73 games, but I'd think that doing what you propose would result in substantially more than a 1 game suspension. And I think one way to be sure that there isn't any concern for that is consistently applying a one-game suspension for leaving the bench, without any wiggle room to consider other circumstances. It's generally a better thing, I think, to keep players out of altercations.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.

I'm saying that once search is re-activated, go find our threads about Joey Crawford.

I'll give it to you that a lot of Spurs fans would knee-jerk and do that, but not all of them.

Believe it or not, there are a number of intelligent Spurs fans on this board

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.The only way to be less ambiguous is to paint more lines on the floor. Or go back to the original rule. Do you really want that?

[4lifecowboy]

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.


Being upset about it, and putting the blame on the opposition is two different things. Which seems to be the stances of most of the national media, and most Sun's fans.

[SpursWoman]

I think that was Jim Gray.


Ahhh ... they are all starting to look alike to me. :lol

[mabber]

I'm saying that once search is re-activated, go find our threads about Joey Crawford.

I'll give it to you that a lot of Spurs fans would knee-jerk and do that, but not all of them.

Believe it or not, there are a number of intelligent Spurs fans on this board

I didn't say all of them but I think most would. I agree that there are many intelligent Spurs fans on this board.

[DePastino]

you're grasping at straws dude

Am I?

It amazes me how many of you are so adamantly defending the rule to the death. There doesn't have to be a "right" and a "wrong". IMO, the rule should be changed.

Clearly, I'm not alone here. Others feel as I do.

And as far as "why now", it just happens to be a very relevant topic in light of recent events. Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.

[ChumpDumper]

Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.In its amended form, it's fine.

[smeagol]

It would be a whole lot easier for coaches to make sure their players are smart enough to obey the rule as written than it would be to try and rewrite the rule into some nebulous mess.
What he said . . . and he is a Dallas fan :lol

[mabber]

Being upset about it, and putting the blame on the opposition is two different things. Which seems to be the stances of most of the national media, and most Sun's fans.

That just goes with the territory.

I'm just not buying anyone that thinks the rule (as written) is fair. I understand and agree that the suspensions should have taken place with the way the rule is currently written.

[kskonn]

I just heard a robert horry quote on the ticket where he said that the only reason he got suspended two games was because he hard fouled steve nash, he said he was the poster boy of the NBA. Damn rob is getting awnry in his old age.

[kskonn]

I know the above post was random but i did not want to start a new thread about what horry said.

[mFFL03]

Did you mention that as he was presenting Dirk his MVP trophy?


we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...

still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWE

fire david stern...the only people still protecting this "rule" are spurs fans...not all...but the only ones. And they are supporting it for the obvious reason, to help them win the game.

change is needed...and needed soon

[smeagol]

That just goes with the territory.

I'm just not buying anyone that thinks the rule (as written) is fair. I understand and agree that the suspensions should have taken place with the way the rule is currently written.

Then why do spend so much time arguing over the point.

You believe the suspensions are fair.

'Nuff said.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...

still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWE

fire david stern...the only people still protecting this "rule" are spurs fans...not all...but the only ones. And they are supporting it for the obvious reason, to help them win the game.

change is needed...and needed soon

And Henry Abbott (admittedly pulling for the Suns this round), and Jemele Hill, and Kenny Smith...

[smeagol]

we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...

still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWE

fire david stern...the only people still protecting this "rule" are spurs fans...not all...but the only ones. And they are supporting it for the obvious reason, to help them win the game.

change is needed...and needed soon
:blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

[judaspriestess]

Am I?

It amazes me how many of you are so adamantly defending the rule to the death. There doesn't have to be a "right" and a "wrong". IMO, the rule should be changed.

Clearly, I'm not alone here. Others feel as I do.

And as far as "why now", it just happens to be a very relevant topic in light of recent events. Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.

THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY!!!!!! its black and white, clear as day, what you see is what you get, it is what it is. Get over it, its an ironclad rule in effect. Maybe this incident will begin the dialogue to change this rule in the future. Could shoulda woulda is not going to get you anywhere.

READ David Sterns comments s-l-o-w-l-y.

"It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?"

[ChumpDumper]

we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...

still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWESo relaxing the bench rule will help this how?
fire david stern.And hire whom?
change is needed...and needed soonWhat changes?

Be specific.

[smeagol]

If Duncan and Manu would have been suspended for taking off the bench, the Suns Fans would be defending how the rule is written all the way to its last word.

In any case, I can't see Timmy and Manu being as stupid as Amare.

In fact, I can see Amare doint it again. That is how stupid that kid is.

[DePastino]

Then why do spend so much time arguing over the point.

You believe the suspensions are fair.

'Nuff said.

The suspensions aren't being debated. The wording of the rule itself is.

[4lifecowboy]

Am I?

It amazes me how many of you are so adamantly defending the rule to the death. There doesn't have to be a "right" and a "wrong". IMO, the rule should be changed.

Clearly, I'm not alone here. Others feel as I do.

And as far as "why now", it just happens to be a very relevant topic in light of recent events. Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.

Go some where with that bullshit! They clearly loss their composure and yet not once have any Sun's fan mention that. There are many altercations in the NBA look at the Utah and Golden State series, yet only two players forget the rule thats been BLACK and WHITE for over a decade :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

The suspensions aren't being debated.
:spin

[DePastino]

If Duncan and Manu would have been suspended for taking off the bench, the Suns Fans would be defending how the rule is written all the way to its last word.

I know for a fact that I wouldn't be, but I also wouldn't be in here debating it either.

[Extra Stout]

The suspensions aren't being debated. The wording of the rule itself is.
I agree the rule should be changed in the offseason.

It is what it is right now.

So is there some other point of disagreement?

[DePastino]

Go some where with that bullshit! They clearly loss their composure and yet not once have any Sun's fan mention that. There are many altercations in the NBA look at the Utah and Golden State series, yet only two players forget the rule thats been BLACK and WHITE for over a decade :rolleyes

Actually, I DID say that they were in the wrong.

I just think the penalty is too stiff.

[judaspriestess]

Actually, I DID say that they were in the wrong.

I just think the penalty is too stiff.

*sigh* one more time ok


"It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?" -David Stern

THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY, its black and white.

[DePastino]

THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY!!!!!! its black and white, clear as day, what you see is what you get, it is what it is. Get over it, its an ironclad rule in effect. Maybe this incident will begin the dialogue to change this rule in the future. Could shoulda woulda is not going to get you anywhere.

READ David Sterns comments s-l-o-w-l-y.

"It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?"

You people are impossible. I'm discussing why I think the rule needs to be changed. I'm not saying that it was enforced incorrectly, nor have I ever.

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to be contentious rather than just agreeing to disagree?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm discussing why I think the rule needs to be changed.Chaged to do what? Reflect perceived intent? Yeah, that would be unambiguous.

[DePastino]

*sigh* one more time ok


"It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?" -David Stern

THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY, its black and white.

It's my opinion THAT IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. In the future. Not retroactively.

I'm not disagreeing with the enforcement of the rule in this instance.

Oy...next topic.

[DePastino]

Chaged to do what? Reflect perceived intent? Yeah, that would be unambiguous.

I already explained this.

The penalty is TOO FUCKING BLACK AND WHITE.

It ALWAYS has been.

If you don't think so, fine.

[ChumpDumper]

I already explained this.

The penalty is TOO FUCKING BLACK AND WHITE.

It ALWAYS has been.Considering what the rule is in place to prevent, no it isn't.

[DePastino]

I agree the rule should be changed in the offseason.

It is what it is right now.

So is there some other point of disagreement?

Nope.

[mFFL03]

So relaxing the bench rule will help this how?And hire whom?What changes?

Be specific.

Not neccessarily the bench rule.....ALL THE RULES......they are just trying to create another MJ through the super star system....

Hire anyone capable of doing the job.....I guess you are trying to say when David Stern dies, the NBA will die as well? come on man, think about what you are saying

Changes? Turn the league around into a respectable commodity again. It's seriously starting to look and sound like the WWE...I've never heard so much whining and unhappiness about the NBA.... EVER.... I know every team can't win, but people are starting to think there is favoritism or bad officiated in pretty much every game now....not good...not good indeed...

[DePastino]

Considering what the rule is in place to prevent, no it isn't.

And that is your opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

And that is your opinion.And that of all the owners. Well, 29 of them now.

[ChumpDumper]

Not neccessarily the bench rule.....ALL THE RULES......they are just trying to create another MJ through the super star system....Wow, that's specific.
Hire anyone capable of doing the job.....I guess you are trying to say when David Stern dies, the NBA will die as well? come on man, think about what you are sayingYou think someone else can do better. Name one.
Changes? Turn the league around into a respectable commodity again.You don't respect the NBA as a commodity? What does that even mean?
It's seriously starting to look and sound like the WWE.And you want to change the bench rule to make it MORE like the WWE.
I've never heard so much whining and unhappiness about the NBA.... EVER....Neither have I, but we've never had this many mav, sun and nuggetfans here all at once.
I know every team can't win, but people are starting to think there is favoritism or bad officiated in pretty much every game now....not good...not good indeed...There are alot of stupid people out there, but I don't think they should have their asses kissed because they are stupid.

[DePastino]

And that of all the owners. Well, 29 of them now.

I suppose so.

But does that make it "right"?

Even if Sarver gets totally shot down in the offseason, I'll still think it's too damn stiff a penalty for a player that literally did nothing but move along the sideline toward a situation that escalated in the blink of an eye.

[nkdlunch]

I suppose so.

But does that make it "right"?

Even if Sarver gets totally shot down in the offseason, I'll still think it's too damn stiff a penalty for a player that literally did nothing but move along the sideline toward a situation that escalated in the blink of an eye.

I think most of us agree. But the fact is the rule was in place when this happened and NBA followed the rule. Nothing more to discuss until the offseason. move on

[ChumpDumper]

I suppose so.

But does that make it "right"?It makes it a rule. And one the players should follow.

[smeagol]

The suspensions aren't being debated. The wording of the rule itself is.
It a very long and fruitless discussion if all you're arguing if the wording of the rule.

As it has been pointed out, even by you and other Dallas Fans. The suspensions are fair. They were done following the letter of the rule.

If you want to change the letter of the rule, this is clearly not the time to do it. When Owners meet with Stern, they can voice their opinion.

It's annoying to see Suns Fans (and some Dallas Fans, and that stupid Kings Fan) rant about the enforcement of a rule which sensible fans agree was fair. And that rule has been in place for a decade.

[judaspriestess]

You people are impossible. I'm discussing why I think the rule needs to be changed. I'm not saying that it was enforced incorrectly, nor have I ever.

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to be contentious rather than just agreeing to disagree?


Its a pointless argument!! Stop repeating yourself, its getting you no where.
We've read what you have to say for the 100th time. LET IT GO :lol

[mFFL03]

Wow, that's specific.You think someone else can do better. Name one.You don't respect the NBA as a commodity? What does that even mean?And you want to change the bench rule to make it MORE like the WWE.Neither have I, but we've never had this many mav, sun and nuggetfans here all at once. There are alot of stupid people out there, but I don't think they should have their asses kissed because they are stupid.


you have the weakest stance....all you are going to do is ask questions and never come up with a stance...yea buddy...let me break down a 40 page business plan for the next 2 years for ya....

...a pointless argument coming from a pointless person....how old are you again?

[ChumpDumper]

you have the weakest stance.You say something should change but when asked what should be specifically changed, you just say "everything." How old are you again?

[DePastino]

Its a pointless argument!! Stop repeating yourself, its getting you no where.
We've read what you have to say for the 100th time. LET IT GO :lol

Apologies, but it seemed as though you kept misinterpreting me, so I was seeking to clarify it for you.

[mFFL03]

You say something should change but when asked what should be specifically changed, you just say "everything." How old are you again?

-officiating

-bench rules

-court rules

-block fouls

-charging fouls

-lane violations

-3 second

-instant replay

-flopping

-offensive charges

-having too many men on the court

-technical fouling

-favoritism

-superstar protection

-home court "advantage"

-NBA All-star

-MVP qualifications

-Dirty Play

should I go on? Well lets wait for another pointless response from you....and I'm 24

[sammy]

yea that makes ALOT of sense now doesnt it?

baron davis can ELBOW someone in the side of the face causing them physical harm yet he is allowed to play next game when it was CLEARLY intentional.

bowen, wether it was on purpose or not had 2 incidents in a matter of 2 games, causing physical harm to nash and who knows what he was trying to do to amare.

and of course the horry checking nash ting.

then you have boris and amare who got off the bench...didnt engage in anything or even come close to it...yet they are the ones serving suspensions... does that make ANY SENSE to you at ALL?


I mean that has got to be the most assbackwards crap ive ever seen.

What about your players Bell elbowing Manu in the head in Game 1; Barbosa/Diaw undercutting Parker in Game 2 and Marion raking his hand across Manu's eye in Game 3 and there was no suspensions or fines against your players but you seem to forget this crap happened to my team, but no calls or fines! Give me a break! Your two players broke the rules! Why don't you get angry at your players for such stupid actions! They know the rules but instead of keeping their composure they ran to get into the scuffle! The intent was there and they were not heading toward Nash! Please look at the replay again! Pop has control of his team so that's why they would not go onto the court while this altercation was going on! If there are any changes in the rules, then the owners will meet with Stern and hammer it out! As it stands they have to enforce as it is stated You will get suspended if you go onto the court during altercation! It would not be fair not enforce the rules as other players were suspended for that very reason! This rule was put into place to prevent another Detroit/Indiana ruckus!

[ChumpDumper]

-officiating

-bench rules

-court rules

-block fouls

-charging fouls

-lane violations

-3 second

-instant replay

-flopping

-offensive charges

-having too many men on the court

-technical fouling

-favoritism

-superstar protection

-home court "advantage"

-NBA All-star

-MVP qualifications

-Dirty Play

should I go on? Well lets wait for another pointless response from you....and I'm 24
Changed to what?

[ChumpDumper]

-having too many men on the court :lol Five men per team is too much?

[pad300]

Your right next time they should take a cheapshot on Parker. They might get off with no penalty.

Are you suggesting that they haven't taken cheap shots at Parker already?

[mFFL03]

:lol Five men per team is too much?


avery once tried to contend that while in play there were 11 men on the court thanks to the other team....no foul, violation was awarded...and it was just a "shrug of the shoulders" type of response....

they kept possession of the ball....

[mardigan]

:lol Five men per team is too much?
:lol

[mFFL03]

Changed to what?


forget you...I'm not going to play your little game....

you are in the minority protecting stern and this league....its going to become a joke....

[ChumpDumper]

avery once tried to contend that while in play there were 11 men on the court thanks to the other team....no foul, violation was awarded...and it was just a "shrug of the shoulders" type of response....

they kept possession of the ball....So basically, you want any call that went against the Mavs to be changed retroactively.

[violentkitten]

whoa, 24. here's a cookie for you:

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Peter-Johansky/Chocolate-Chip-Cookie-on-White-Background-Photographic-Print-C12005484.jpeg

[ChumpDumper]

forget you...I'm not going to play your little game....

you are in the minority protecting stern and this league....its going to become a joke....Eh, they have a tough job that will never be fully appreciated by ignorant fans.

[mFFL03]

So basically, you want any call that went against the Mavs to be changed retroactively.


yup you got it! you showed me!

:clap :lol :clap :lol :clap :lol :clap :lol

[mardigan]

So basically, you want any call that went against the Mavs to be changed retroactively.
:lol maybe they would still be in the playoffs then

[ChumpDumper]

yup you got it!You're welcome.

[Obstructed_View]

The greatest commsioner of any professional sport. Ever. He didn't cave in to the most biased and uneducated public outcry in the history of the NBA.

[smeagol]

-officiating

-bench rules

-court rules

-block fouls

-charging fouls

-lane violations

-3 second

-instant replay

-flopping

-offensive charges

-having too many men on the court

-technical fouling

-favoritism

-superstar protection

-home court "advantage"

-NBA All-star

-MVP qualifications

-Dirty Play

should I go on? Well lets wait for another pointless response from you....and I'm 24

Why do you watch the NBA in the first place, then?

[sammy]

Are you suggesting that they haven't taken cheap shots at Parker already?

These idiots seem to forget how Diaw/Barbosa undercutted Parker in game 2 and no foul or suspension!

[violentkitten]

Why do you watch the NBA in the first place, then?

no shit. i guess he likes:

- mascots

- arena food

- bobbleheads ~~~~yippeee! :elephant :elephant

- father/daughter night

- halftime entertainment

and so on

[smeagol]

avery once tried to contend that while in play there were 11 men on the court thanks to the other team....no foul, violation was awarded...and it was just a "shrug of the shoulders" type of response....

they kept possession of the ball....
So it happened once and you panties get all in bunch?

Oh, I see, it happened against Dallas :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry

Here, have yourself a hankie . . .

[smeagol]

no shit. i guess he likes:

- mascots

- arena food

- bobbleheads ~~~~yippeee! :elephant :elephant

- father/daughter night

- halftime entertainment

and so on

I only watch the NBA to see those hot cheerleaders.

[mFFL03]

Eh, they have a tough job that will never be fully appreciated by ignorant fans.


who has a tough job?

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, they have a tough job that will never be fully appreciated by ignorant fans.

who has a tough job?Case in point.

[mabber]

The greatest commsioner of any professional sport. Ever. He didn't cave in to the most biased and uneducated public outcry in the history of the NBA.

Didn't you hear his interview with D.Patrick? He couldn't cave in as he has no power to :lol He distanced from having anything to do with that rule saying it was the owners who came up with it and he had no leeway to do anything :rolleyes

[mardigan]

Didn't you hear his interview with D.Patrick? He couldn't cave in as he has no power to :lol He distanced from having anything to do with that rule saying it was the owners who came up with it and he had no leeway to do anything :rolleyes
Thats funny, because on PTI he also was asked if it was up to him would he change it, and he responded no

[Obstructed_View]

Didn't you hear his interview with D.Patrick? He couldn't cave in as he has no power to :lol He distanced from having anything to do with that rule saying it was the owners who came up with it and he had no leeway to do anything :rolleyes
He refused to change the rules just to hurt a team that everyone hates. He refused to even discuss the possiblity of it. You guys have been suggesting that he should just let the Suns play by a different set of rules because they are a team that's been kicking the shit out of your teams for the last ten years. All he did was state the facts, and didn't have any problem answering hard questions from a guy who hasn't been able to stand the Spurs for as long as I can remember.

[mFFL03]

Case in point.


what point?

[ChumpDumper]

what point?Exactly.

Too easy.

[mFFL03]

Exactly.

Too easy.


yeah buddy....you showed me!



by the way you never commented on the other 15 on my list that needs to be "changed"


I guess you are agreeing with me on everything else....

[Kori Ellis]

:lol

I just heard the Stern interview finally.

Damn, he owned Dan Patrick :lmao That was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while.

[ChumpDumper]

yeah buddy....you showed me!Actually you showed everyone who can read.
by the way you never commented on the other 15 on my list that needs to be "changed"The first one discussed was so utterly ridiculous, there was no reason to continue.

[mardigan]

yeah buddy....you showed me!



by the way you never commented on the other 15 on my list that needs to be "changed"


I guess you are agreeing with me on everything else....
Thats because you listed 15 things that you think should be changed, maybe you should watch another sport

[smeagol]

yeah buddy....you showed me!



by the way you never commented on the other 15 on my list that needs to be "changed"


I guess you are agreeing with me on everything else....
And you never commented on my question.

If you dislike almost everything about the NBA, why the fuck do you watch it?

Check out NASCAR, curling or polo. No issues with the officiating and the impossition of rules in those sports.

[mFFL03]

:lol

I just heard the Stern interview finally.

Damn, he owned Dan Patrick :lmao That was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while.


Dan didn't get owned per say...he brought up some interesting points but just didn't know how to follow through. i.e. cite specific references to previous games


David stern getting REALLY mad was comical but was weird....

Keith Olberman would have slammed Stern into the ground....he's the only reason I listen to that show

[smeagol]

Dan didn't get owned per say...he brought up some interesting points but just didn't know how to follow through. i.e. cite specific references to previous games


David stern getting REALLY mad was comical but was weird....

Keith Olberman would have slammed Stern into the ground....he's the only reason I listen to that show
For a guys who hates the NBA, you seem to be pretty hook up to it.

[Kori Ellis]

Dan didn't get owned per say...he brought up some interesting points but just didn't know how to follow through. i.e. cite specific references to previous games


David stern getting REALLY mad was comical but was weird....

Keith Olberman would have slammed Stern into the ground....he's the only reason I listen to that show

He got owned.
Stern killed him on every point and he had nothing to say.

[Obstructed_View]

Dan didn't get owned per say...he brought up some interesting points but just didn't know how to follow through. i.e. cite specific references to previous games
That's because he was getting owned. :lol

[mFFL03]

And you never commented on my question.

If you dislike almost everything about the NBA, why the fuck do you watch it?

Check out NASCAR, curling or polo. No issues with the officiating and the impossition of rules in those sports.


because I like it. Plain and simple.

I don't like how things have been handled to my team or any other team in the NBA. I like the plays, players, coaching, and games....

I think I could search down the pages/threads and find "we got screwed" "refs are the reason..."

why don't you tell them to go watch another sport too while you are at it....I'm at least advocating change...not whining about why things didn't come my way.....

why wouldn't exploring a new commish be a good thing to do? It's gotta happen sometime.....

[mFFL03]

He got owned.
Stern killed him on every point and he had nothing to say.


Stern had only one good point. "It's the law"

I don't buy the "I can't do anything"

[ChumpDumper]

Stern should change the rules because someone on the internets thinks Amare should get preferential treatment.

[greenroom]

That was a great job by Stern. Let me see Dan Patrick was saying that we should change the rules to protect star players, the Commish should know what the intent of a player is and if it benifits the NBA.

Lets be honest here. Yes it was a cheap shot by Big Shot Rob, but Amare and Boris did make a mistake and left the bench. Just like Big Shot Rob has to pay the penalty so does Amare and Boris.. does it make it good for the NBA Hell No, but what choice did they have. Not to enforce the rules?

[judaspriestess]

He got owned.
Stern killed him on every point and he had nothing to say.

I have not heard the interview myself Kori, but I did hear how Keith Olbermann told Dan Patrick if he was going to get over it. He was really stunned by David Stern. :lol

[spurs1990]

Definitely need to download the mp3 if you haven't heard it yet.

http://www.mediamax.com/match34/Hosted/stern.mp3

Never before have I laughed at a serious sports interview. Stern has my vote if he's running next year.

[Sasha]

Gosh, the Commissioner just demanded that players be accountable for their bad choices and applied a rule even-handedly, without regard to the identities of the players involved.

What a dick.


Word.

[pooh]

Patrick stood his ground today against those "hopefully fired" Vex and Walter today. They should put that up for podcast.

[johngateswhiteley]

He got owned.
Stern killed him on every point and he had nothing to say.

no kidding, and i thought what Stern said was great. in almost every interview i have heard (with Stern) he absolutely kills those against him, including that chump Dan Patrick.

[Agloco]

Yeah, just heard the replay of it. Regardless of who you think is right or not, Stern really came across as a dick.


And he needed to. WTF is up with people blaming him or the godammed rule?

If I were him, I'd be quite tired of people talking out of their asses also.

Is it so fucking hard to stay rooted to the bench knowing what's at stake if you dont? We expect children to act without regard for rules, not grownup professionals.

As Stern said, its a shame that the rule exists at all. Whose fault is that?

[Agloco]

no kidding, and i thought what Stern said was great. in almost every interview i have heard (with Stern) he absolutely kills those against him, including that chump Dan Patrick.


I don't know if you caught Dan Patrick on Mike and Mike the next morning. DP was practically screaming at Golic about the "injustices" of the rule. I thought for a bit that it was going to get personal. It got quite chippy between the two.

DP is obviously very biased on this matter. It's an understatement to say that he was extremely emotional about it. As Kori said, it's probaly because he got thoroughly owned by Stern and looked bad on a national broadcast.

Interesting that Greenberg didn't say a single word during the 5 minute exchange.

[spurs1990]

I don't know if you caught Dan Patrick on Mike and Mike the next morning. DP was practically screaming at Golic about the "injustices" of the rule. I thought for a bit that it was going to get personal. It got quite chippy between the two.

DP is obviously very biased on this matter. It's an understatement to say that he was extremely emotional about it. As Kori said, it's probaly because he got thoroughly owned by Stern and looked bad on a national broadcast.

Interesting that Greenberg didn't say a single word during the 5 minute exchange.

yeah but Patrick "picked the Spur to win it all " so clearly he's objective, the tool.

[judaspriestess]

yeah but Patrick "picked the Spur to win it all " so clearly he's objective, the tool.

From what I heard from my SO today, Dan Patrick was all over the Spurs jock today.

[picnroll]

There were 12 players on the bench. Ten of them could figure it out. You think maybe if they leave the rule the way it is Amare and Diaw will be smart enough to stay with the other ten next time?

[johngateswhiteley]

I don't know if you caught Dan Patrick on Mike and Mike the next morning. DP was practically screaming at Golic about the "injustices" of the rule. I thought for a bit that it was going to get personal. It got quite chippy between the two.

DP is obviously very biased on this matter. It's an understatement to say that he was extremely emotional about it. As Kori said, it's probaly because he got thoroughly owned by Stern and looked bad on a national broadcast.

Interesting that Greenberg didn't say a single word during the 5 minute exchange.


i caught it. DP looked like an idiot again...

on another note, i think Stern has done a pretty good job as commissioner.

[Jimcs50]

I love Dan Patrick and his show is the best show on the radio, by far.

[johngateswhiteley]

I love Dan Patrick and his show is the best show on the radio, by far.

i find myself disagreeing with him a lot, whenever i listen. which, is hardly ever...

[jag]

ya even before he blew that whole thing outa proportion some of his ideas have always been kinda out there....he's kind of a bitch