GSH
05-17-2007, 01:21 PM
Note: I was writing this at the same time as another post was created. Not an intentional duplicate thread. Read the paragraph below with the blue letters. It's something you haven't read anywhere else.
This is from a USA Today article earlier this year:
TNT analyst Steve Kerr agrees that fighting will never be eliminated. But he says the league reduced the incidents of fighting significantly when it began automatically suspending players who leave the bench during an altercation, even peacemakers.
That was the case with Reggie Miller during the 2004 brawl at The Palace of Auburn Hills (Mich.) involving the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons. Jerome James and Nene each were penalized one game for leaving their benches Saturday.
"The best rule ever put in is guys can't leave the bench," Kerr says. "Altercations are easier to quell because there are only a handful (of players) to control.
That sounds like the Steve Kerr I know. Hard to believe he's the same guy who wrote this:
I understand the spirit of the rule, which is to keep bench players from potentially initiating or escalating a brawl. But I think there are two fundamental problems with the current rule:
1. It potentially rewards the team that commits the dirty foul in the first place because the players who generally leave the bench (and end up suspended) are the ones from the team that has gotten punked.
2. It makes no room for human reaction. The intensity and emotion involved when you're playing in an NBA playoff game is unbelievable, and when you see your teammate get nailed by a cheap shot, your reaction is to take a few steps toward the play.
My feeling is that the rule should be altered to allow for that human reaction, as long as the players' second reaction is to immediately turn back around when his brain tells him, "Don't leave the bench!" If you watch Diaw on the replay, that's exactly what he does -- he takes three steps, then realizes he shouldn't be on the floor and turns back.
Every player in the league knows he can't run onto the floor, but sometimes human instinct takes over. If it's just for a second or two, and the player turns back around quickly without doing anything, then why punish him?
So what caused Kerr to change his thinking on the subject? What's different this time? Not only did he do a complete about-face, but he thought up a "solution" specifically tailored to the Suns situation.
Which brings me to the real reason I am so down on Kerr - the video of Duncan and Bowen on the floor earlier in the game. From what I understand, as soon as it was clear that Stoudamire and Diaw had come onto the floor, some of the Suns staff immediately began reviewing video footage looking for something the Spurs had done. When they found the clip with Duncan and Bowen, they quickly discussed it with Suns "management", and then brought it straight to Steve Kerr. (Along with the bullshit story they had concocted that Stoudamire and Diaw were just trying to check in to the game.) It's for sure they wanted it made public. But why Kerr? Because of his involvement with TNT...or his involvement with the Suns?
Can I confirm that? Not without getting anyone fired. But I trust the source. And it looks pretty consistent with the facts. You'll note that Kerr didn't waste any time bringing it to the public's attention. In interviews...on his Yahoo Sports blog... and I think he brought it up during the game broadcast (but I don't have it recorded). Nearly every reference to the Duncan/Bowen issue also references Steve Kerr. I don't care if Kerr is a nice guy, or helped the Spurs win a championship. He sure gives the appearance of someone who is an extension of D'Antoni's lobbying during this series. Like in his Yahoo blog:If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5. ...The series should be decided by the teams and the players, not by an inflexible rule....The only player who deserves a suspension for Game 5 is Horry.
Now that I know the rest of this, some of his other comments piss me off more. Remember his comment about Duncan after the Crawford ejection? "He gives that look of amazement better than anybody else," noted TNT's Steve Kerr, an ex-teammate. "There's a lot of guys in this league who have yet to commit their first foul in their careers." I didn't like it then...it really pisses me off now. After all, Steve is a former teammate. Who would know better than him, right? He's certainly gotten mileage out of that.
Everyone says that Kerr is a smart guy, and a nice guy. Maybe he's just smart enough to make people think he is too nice to abuse his position at TNT to help the Suns.
This is from a USA Today article earlier this year:
TNT analyst Steve Kerr agrees that fighting will never be eliminated. But he says the league reduced the incidents of fighting significantly when it began automatically suspending players who leave the bench during an altercation, even peacemakers.
That was the case with Reggie Miller during the 2004 brawl at The Palace of Auburn Hills (Mich.) involving the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons. Jerome James and Nene each were penalized one game for leaving their benches Saturday.
"The best rule ever put in is guys can't leave the bench," Kerr says. "Altercations are easier to quell because there are only a handful (of players) to control.
That sounds like the Steve Kerr I know. Hard to believe he's the same guy who wrote this:
I understand the spirit of the rule, which is to keep bench players from potentially initiating or escalating a brawl. But I think there are two fundamental problems with the current rule:
1. It potentially rewards the team that commits the dirty foul in the first place because the players who generally leave the bench (and end up suspended) are the ones from the team that has gotten punked.
2. It makes no room for human reaction. The intensity and emotion involved when you're playing in an NBA playoff game is unbelievable, and when you see your teammate get nailed by a cheap shot, your reaction is to take a few steps toward the play.
My feeling is that the rule should be altered to allow for that human reaction, as long as the players' second reaction is to immediately turn back around when his brain tells him, "Don't leave the bench!" If you watch Diaw on the replay, that's exactly what he does -- he takes three steps, then realizes he shouldn't be on the floor and turns back.
Every player in the league knows he can't run onto the floor, but sometimes human instinct takes over. If it's just for a second or two, and the player turns back around quickly without doing anything, then why punish him?
So what caused Kerr to change his thinking on the subject? What's different this time? Not only did he do a complete about-face, but he thought up a "solution" specifically tailored to the Suns situation.
Which brings me to the real reason I am so down on Kerr - the video of Duncan and Bowen on the floor earlier in the game. From what I understand, as soon as it was clear that Stoudamire and Diaw had come onto the floor, some of the Suns staff immediately began reviewing video footage looking for something the Spurs had done. When they found the clip with Duncan and Bowen, they quickly discussed it with Suns "management", and then brought it straight to Steve Kerr. (Along with the bullshit story they had concocted that Stoudamire and Diaw were just trying to check in to the game.) It's for sure they wanted it made public. But why Kerr? Because of his involvement with TNT...or his involvement with the Suns?
Can I confirm that? Not without getting anyone fired. But I trust the source. And it looks pretty consistent with the facts. You'll note that Kerr didn't waste any time bringing it to the public's attention. In interviews...on his Yahoo Sports blog... and I think he brought it up during the game broadcast (but I don't have it recorded). Nearly every reference to the Duncan/Bowen issue also references Steve Kerr. I don't care if Kerr is a nice guy, or helped the Spurs win a championship. He sure gives the appearance of someone who is an extension of D'Antoni's lobbying during this series. Like in his Yahoo blog:If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5. ...The series should be decided by the teams and the players, not by an inflexible rule....The only player who deserves a suspension for Game 5 is Horry.
Now that I know the rest of this, some of his other comments piss me off more. Remember his comment about Duncan after the Crawford ejection? "He gives that look of amazement better than anybody else," noted TNT's Steve Kerr, an ex-teammate. "There's a lot of guys in this league who have yet to commit their first foul in their careers." I didn't like it then...it really pisses me off now. After all, Steve is a former teammate. Who would know better than him, right? He's certainly gotten mileage out of that.
Everyone says that Kerr is a smart guy, and a nice guy. Maybe he's just smart enough to make people think he is too nice to abuse his position at TNT to help the Suns.