Duncan vs. KG facts.

[MadDog73]

I seriously just owned every Spurs fan in this thread.

Wasn't even that hard.

Off to lunch!


:rolleyes

That's :lol

You're :drunk

Have a good :hungry:

[samikeyp]

So...if you break a rule, you should not be punished?

I agree that the rule sucks and I also that agree where in some cases Zero tolerance is excessive but it is a rule. Several Suns fans came here and said that those players should not be suspended even though they violated the rule. And before its mentioned, yes there would be tons of Spurs fans angry if the situation were reversed and there would be several Spurs fans making the same argument you are...but they would also be wrong.

[samikeyp]

The commissioner should have done what's right

right in who's opinion?

Spurs fans would say he did that. Who is wrong?

[Shred]

So...if you break a rule, you should not be punished?

Sorry if what said went over your head. Read it again.

[samikeyp]

Sorry if what said went over your head. Read it again.

It didn't go over my head. I was just asking a question.

Why do you feel if someone disagrees with you they are somehow inferior to you?

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry if what said went over your head. Read it again.I did. You don't want your team to be subject to the rules.

[Shred]

It didn't go over my head. I was just asking a question.

Why do you feel if someone disagrees with you they are somehow inferior to you?

:rolleyes

[Shred]

I did. You don't want your team to be subject to the rules.

If Stern/Jackson had said--just like he said about Duncan and Bowen--that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area, therby avoiding this whole controversy and a tarnished playoffs but giving the fans what they wanted, would that have been putting the Suns "above the rules?" Would that have been wrong?

[Spurminator]

that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area

That would be inaccurate.

[samikeyp]

If Stern/Jackson had said--just like he said about Duncan and Bowen--that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area, therby avoiding this whole controversy and a tarnished playoffs but giving the fans what they wanted, would that have been putting the Suns "above the rules?" Would that have been wrong?

IMO, no. If Stern ruled that there was no altercation, then the rule would not apply so it would not have been wrong. Elson didn't go after Amare when he was undercut, he went to complain to the ref...if he had gotten in Amare's face that might have been different.

This goes back to what I posted earlier on one of the reasons why I think its a shitty rule. The NBA does not have a definition of what an altercation is and if they do, I don't know it so someone can correct me on it.

[Shred]

And speaking of unanswered questions, just why did Duncan go on to the court?

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

This is a good show. Thank you guys for giving me something to keep me busy until draft night.

[Soul_Patch]

I have a hard time believing that "DA_SUNS_FAN" is real. No one is that ridiculous are they?


has to be a troll alt of some long time poster.

[ChumpDumper]

If Stern/Jackson had said--just like he said about Duncan and Bowen--that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area, therby avoiding this whole controversy and a tarnished playoffs but giving the fans what they wanted, would that have been putting the Suns "above the rules?" Yes.

[Shred]

That would be inaccurate.

And the harm would be, what? Fans might doubt the integrity of officiating in the NBA? THE HORROR! :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

And speaking of unanswered questions, just why did Duncan go on to the court?Doesn't matter. No altercation.

[Shred]

Yes.

Why don't you go back and check the video? They're already back by the time Bell gets in Horry's face.

[ChumpDumper]

And the harm would be, what?And rules shouldn't apply to one team and not others, why?

[Shred]

Doesn't matter. No altercation.

Doesn't matter if they thought there was one?

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you go back and check the video? They're already back by the time Bell gets in Horry's face.Nope.

[ChumpDumper]

Doesn't matter if they thought there was one?Nope.

[Shred]

And rules shouldn't apply to one team and not others, why?

Dumbass: I'm talking about Stern applying the rule identically in each situation.

[samikeyp]

And speaking of unanswered questions, just why did Duncan go on to the court?

I answered that in post #229 but no need to go back, I will repost here.

He and Bowen stepped onto the court when Elson was undercut by Amare and no foul was called. That, in itself, is not against the rule. Although if I was the ref, I would have given them both T's. Amare continued downcourt after it happened and Elson complained to the refs. Bowen and Duncan stepped onto the court when it happened but by rule since there was no altercation, the suspension rule does not come into effect.

[Shred]

Nope.

Such is the power of the asterisk, Spur fan will deny reality as long as it means in his own sick little mind he can justify what happened.

*

[ChumpDumper]

Dumbass: I'm talking about Stern applying the rule identically in each situation.He didn't.

Because there was an altercation after the Nash foul and not after the Elson foul.

[Shred]

I answered that in post #229 but no need to go back, I will repost here.

He and Bowen stepped onto the court when Elson was undercut by Amare and no foul was called. That, in itself, is not against the rule. Although if I was the ref, I would have given them both T's. Amare continued downcourt after it happened and Elson complained to the refs. Bowen and Duncan stepped onto the court when it happened but by rule since there was no altercation, the suspension rule does not come into effect.

RIF (Reading Is FUNdamental): Not WHEN, but WHY?

[ChumpDumper]

Such is the power of the asteriskStay near the bench.

[samikeyp]

Doesn't matter if they thought there was one?

Actually it doesn't. They can think there is one all they want but until one happens, it doesn't matter. Right or wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

RIF (Reading Is FUNdamental): Not WHEN, but WHY?Doesn't matter.

[samikeyp]

RIF (Reading Is FUNdamental): Not WHEN, but WHY?

Again with the insults?

They were complaining to the refs. Which is why I thought they should have got T's.

[Shred]

Actually it doesn't. They can think there is one all they want but until one happens, it doesn't matter. Right or wrong.

I think even you have to admit your argument's devolved into total ludicrousness. :dizzy

[samikeyp]

Such is the power of the asterisk, Spur fan will deny reality as long as it means in his own sick little mind he can justify what happened.

Reality according to who?

The Spurs should have an asterisk or give up their trophy because you said so?

[Shred]

Again with the insults?

They were complaining to the refs. Which is why I thought they should have got T's.

Again, why? I've seen enough posts talking about what a dumbass Amare is because he left the bench. I just want to hear why Duncan isn't a dumbass, too.

[samikeyp]

I think even you have to admit your argument's devolved into total ludicrousness.

Your opinion. I don't agree.

[Shred]

Reality according to whom? It was all on tape. YouTube it.

[Spurminator]

And the harm would be, what? Fans might doubt the integrity of officiating in the NBA? THE HORROR! :rolleyes


And there it is. You admit that you should be above the rules because it's really not that big a deal.

Thanks for settling.

Now back to why Duncan owns KG...

[samikeyp]

Again, why?

Again...

They were complaining to the refs

They being Duncan and Bowen.

[Shred]

Again, why? I've seen enough posts talking about what a dumbass Amare is because he left the bench. I just want to hear why Duncan isn't a dumbass, too.

Anyone?

Bueller?

[Spurminator]

It was all on tape. YouTube it.

Tell me what's going on at 3:03-3:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0qe7PGCQvI

[ChumpDumper]

Again, why? I've seen enough posts talking about what a dumbass Amare is because he left the bench. I just want to hear why Duncan isn't a dumbass, too.He was a dumbass. He just was lucky there wasn't an altercation.

[samikeyp]

Reality according to whom? It was all on tape. YouTube it.

Youtube caught an altercation between Elson and Amare?

Cool...can i see? :)

[samikeyp]

And the harm would be, what? Fans might doubt the integrity of officiating in the NBA? THE HORROR!

That was happening wayyyy before the Suns-Spurs series! :lmao

[samikeyp]

He was a dumbass. He just was lucky there wasn't an altercation

Agreed. The meltdown here would have huge!

[Shred]

Tell me what's going on at 3:03-3:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0qe7PGCQvI

Already back within the coach's box.

[ChumpDumper]

Already back within the coach's box.1) No he isn't.

2) The rule says nothing about the coach's box anyway.

[samikeyp]

Serious question.

Shred...do you believe 100%, without a doubt that if there were no suspensions that the Suns would have won the series and that the Spurs would have had no shot at all?

Other Phx fans feel this way....I am curious about your take.

[Shred]

1) No he isn't.

2) The rule says nothing about the coach's box anyway.

Looked like it to me. The rule uses the undefined term, "bench area." Stern didn't have any discretion in determining what constitutes the "bench area," I suppose?

[Shred]

Serious question.

Shred...do you believe 100%, without a doubt that if there were no suspensions that the Suns would have won the series and that the Spurs would have had no shot at all?

Other Phx fans feel this way....I am curious about your take.

Nothing's 100%, which is why they (usually) play the game on the court. However, I will say it was more likely than not.

[samikeyp]

Looked like it to me. The rule uses the undefined term, "bench area." Stern didn't have any discretion in determining what constitutes the "bench area," I suppose?

I think this is the NBA's biggest problem. Some rules are way too vague.

[Shred]

I think this is the NBA's biggest problem. Some rules are way too vague.

So why couldn't Stern have said they returned to the "bench area" in time? Problem solved. But he had to flex his muscles....

Anyway, now that I have at least a few Spur fans who will no longer engage in the "Stoudemire is a dumbass with no basketball sense," at least I have made some headway here.

[ChumpDumper]

Looked like it to me. The rule uses the undefined term, "bench area." Stern didn't have any discretion in determining what constitutes the "bench area," I suppose?The term was introduced because Patrick Ewing got suspended for standing next to the bench with his big ass feet partially over the side line during an altercation.

Had Amare stood near the bench with his feet over the sideline, he would not have been suspended. Guaranteed.

Stay near the bench.

[samikeyp]

Nothing's 100%, which is why they (usually) play the game on the court. However, I will say it was more likely than not.

Fair enough. I will respectfully disagree but that is what makes these boards fun.

I would still like to see that rule amended. Something like the coaches box thing I think should be more defined and I would like to see rules on what defines an altercation.

[ChumpDumper]

So why couldn't Stern have said they returned to the "bench area" in time? Problem solved. But he had to flex his muscles....

Anyway, now that I have at least a few Spur fans who will no longer engage in the "Stoudemire is a dumbass with no basketball sense," at least I have made some headway here.Amare was a dumbass.

[ChumpDumper]

Fair enough. I will respectfully disagree but that is what makes these boards fun.

I would still like to see that rule amended. Something like the coaches box thing I think should be more defined and I would like to see rules on what defines an altercation.I would like to see players stay near the bench.

[da_suns_fan__]

Serious question.

Shred...do you believe 100%, without a doubt that if there were no suspensions that the Suns would have won the series and that the Spurs would have had no shot at all?

Other Phx fans feel this way....I am curious about your take.

Do you believe the Spurs would have won if the Suspensions never took place even after the Suns took control of the series?

We'll never know...hence the asterick.

[Shred]

Had Amare stood near the bench with his feet over the sideline, he would not have been suspended. Guaranteed.

Stay near the bench.

This begs the question, what is "near the bench?" If it's not defined in the rules, does the commissioner have any discretion in making that determination? Is the light starting to go on for you?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you believe the Spurs would have won if the Suspensions never took place even after the Suns took control of the series?No reason not to.

[samikeyp]

Anyway, now that I have at least a few Spur fans who will no longer engage in the "Stoudemire is a dumbass with no basketball sense," at least I have made some headway here.

I never have and can't comment on his basketball sense because he is way better than I but IMO any player that leaves his bench except to go to the locker room or into the game is a dumbass.

[Shred]

Amare was a dumbass.

"Duncan was a dumbass." Sincerely, ChumpDumper.

[ChumpDumper]

This begs the question, what is "near the bench?" If it's not defined in the rules, does the commissioner have any discretion in making that determination? Is the light starting to go on for you?As I said, the term was introduced to keep from suspending players whose feet may have been over the sideline when they stood up from the bench. Had Amare done that, he would not have been suspended. Guaranteed.

[samikeyp]

Do you believe the Spurs would have won if the Suspensions never took place even after the Suns took control of the series?

We'll never know...hence the asterick.

The only asterisk is made up by fans not the league and is therefore does not exist.

At the time of the suspensions....the series was 2-2. No one was in control.

[ChumpDumper]

"Duncan was a dumbass." Sincerely, ChumpDumper.He was. I've said that many times before today. Do a search.

[Shred]

As I said, the term was introduced to keep from suspending players whose feet may have been over the sideline when they stood up from the bench. Had Amare done that, he would not have been suspended. Guaranteed.

So you're saying the spirit of the rule should have some place in how it is interpreted and implied? I think I just brought you around to my way of thinking.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're saying the spirit of the rule should have some place in how it is interpreted and implied? I think I just brought you around to my way of thinking.No. Ewing was suspended. They changed the rule afterwards. That was the correct course of action. If they want to change the rule now, fine. I think it's pretty clear -- stay near the bench. The precedents are clear enough for non-dumbasses to follow.

[ambchang]

Stoudemire and Diaw had already turned back toward the bench at the time of the "altercation" involving Bell.
That is untrue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp4UF4Av_g0
Go to the 1:10 - 1:15 mark, Horry was shoving Bell, and Amare was clearly seen going towards Horry, but being restrained by teammates in the background.

[Spurminator]

Already back within the coach's box.


Hard to argue with a blind basketball fan.

[ambchang]

Such is the power of the asterisk, Spur fan will deny reality as long as it means in his own sick little mind he can justify what happened.

*
I am sure the Spurs fans are justifying what actually happened is reality, while the Suns fans (read: you) is justifying what did not happen had should happen is reality.
In reality, the Suns won the championship.
In reality, the Suns should not be penalized for a rule that the owners have not overturned in 10 years.

[da_suns_fan__]

This is crazy.

Sending youtube clips to try and find the slightest bit of evidence that Amare and Diaw left the bench area.

Steve Kerr, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith and the rest of the MEDIA are as much to blame as everyone else. They're the ones who brought immediate attention and debate to something INSIGNIFICANT. They basically called out Stern....said "What are you going to do? Be the enforcer or swallow your pride.?"

All of us (the fans) are the ones who suffered cuz they wanted something interesting to write about.

[Shred]

No. Ewing was suspended. They changed the rule afterwards. That was the correct course of action. If they want to change the rule now, fine. I think it's pretty clear -- stay near the bench. The precedents are clear enough for non-dumbasses to follow.

What is "near the bench?"

[samikeyp]

All of us (the fans) are the ones who suffered cuz they wanted something interesting to write about.

On that...we agree.

[ChumpDumper]

What is "near the bench?"Not the timeline. I'll just keep pasting this until you understand it.
As I said, the term was introduced to keep from suspending players whose feet may have been over the sideline when they stood up from the bench. Had Amare done that, he would not have been suspended. Guaranteed.

[ambchang]

This begs the question, what is "near the bench?" If it's not defined in the rules, does the commissioner have any discretion in making that determination? Is the light starting to go on for you?
Any reasonable person would guess that a good 15 feet away from the bench on a 90-foot court is definitely not "near the bench", but then you will start arguing what a "reasonable person" is. I mean, that is too vague.

[ambchang]

Do you believe the Spurs would have won if the Suspensions never took place even after the Suns took control of the series?

We'll never know...hence the asterick.
What we do know is that the Spurs did win the championship this year with what actually happened in this universe, and the Suns did not.
I suppose the Suns should have an asterix next to their team in the 2007 record books.
* - hypothetical NBA champions in alternate universe.

[ambchang]

This is crazy.

Sending youtube clips to try and find the slightest bit of evidence that Amare and Diaw left the bench area.

Steve Kerr, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith and the rest of the MEDIA are as much to blame as everyone else. They're the ones who brought immediate attention and debate to something INSIGNIFICANT. They basically called out Stern....said "What are you going to do? Be the enforcer or swallow your pride.?"

All of us (the fans) are the ones who suffered cuz they wanted something interesting to write about.
Let's see, Kerr is a part owner of the Suns, Barkley is a Suns icon, yeah, lets go with the opinions of the media instead of looking at youtube clips, becaues youtube clips clearly showed the Suns violating the rules and does not help my argument.

[da_suns_fan__]

Let's see, Kerr is a part owner of the Suns, Barkley is a Suns icon, yeah, lets go with the opinions of the media instead of looking at youtube clips, becaues youtube clips clearly showed the Suns violating the rules and does not help my argument.

I dont think you are understanding my argument.

[Spurminator]

Sending youtube clips to try and find the slightest bit of evidence that Amare and Diaw left the bench area.

Wasn't our idea.

[ChumpDumper]

I dont think you are understanding my argument.Nah, they knew the rule and who was suspended because of it and why. Kerr merely predicted what would happen. The tape was going to be reviewed no matter what, so another in your long line of arguments fails.

[Shred]

Any reasonable person would guess that a good 15 feet away from the bench on a 90-foot court is definitely not "near the bench", but then you will start arguing what a "reasonable person" is. I mean, that is too vague.

That is my point. Stern just should have said the rule didn't apply, maybe give Horry a 1-game suspension, and let it go....

[ambchang]

I dont think you are understanding my argument.
I don't, because the media was clearly on the Suns side throughout the whole ordeal. Yes, they challenged Stern and whoever challenged Stern usually fails, but that tape was going to be reviewed regardless, it was a flagrant two, there was an altercation with shoves exchanged, and there was general mahem. It's not like if Kerr didn't bring it up, the league office will act like nothing happened.

[ChumpDumper]

That is my point. Stern just should have said the rule didn't apply, maybe give Horry a 1-game suspension, and let it go....So Stern should have said the rules don't apply to the Phoenix Suns.

Great argument.

[Spurminator]

That is my point. Stern just should have said the rule didn't apply to my team

Yep

[Marcus Bryant]

Damn, still whining.

[Spurminator]

I'd say "sig worthy" if this was still a topic of any current relevance. At this point it's like putting an Andrew Dice Clay quote in your sig.

[ShoogarBear]

It would most helpful and save us all a lot of future consternation if Sun Fan, in advance of the 2007-2008 season, gave us the list of rules from which the Suns should be excluded.

Thaaaaaanks.

[ambchang]

That is my point. Stern just should have said the rule didn't apply, maybe give Horry a 1-game suspension, and let it go....
But why would Stern give a special amnesty and say the rule doesn't apply this time? I really do not understand your argument.
Horry bodychecked Nash, Bell challenged Horry, Horry shoved Bell, and Amare and Diaw left bench. It is about the clearest rule.
It would be nice for Stern to excuse the Suns and let them play because the Suns are media darlings and draw in huge amounts of revenue, but that would be destroying the league.
The league suspended Ewing for having his foot on the line because that was the written rule, Ewing was NOT excused in an arguable MORE important game in the playoffs. The rule was subsequently changed but the message is clear, once the rule is there, the league will follow that rule word for word, why is it that out of 450 players in the league, only Diaw and Stoudemire not get this?

[da_suns_fan__]

I don't, because the media was clearly on the Suns side throughout the whole ordeal. Yes, they challenged Stern and whoever challenged Stern usually fails, but that tape was going to be reviewed regardless, it was a flagrant two, there was an altercation with shoves exchanged, and there was general mahem. It's not like if Kerr didn't bring it up, the league office will act like nothing happened.

I disagree.

[ChumpDumper]

I disagree.Nope, the tape would've been reviewed and the same conclusion would have been reached.

[ambchang]

I disagree.
Certainly strangling me with the grip of reason.

[Shred]

But why would Stern give a special amnesty and say the rule doesn't apply this time? I really do not understand your argument.
Horry bodychecked Nash, Bell challenged Horry, Horry shoved Bell, and Amare and Diaw left bench. It is about the clearest rule.
It would be nice for Stern to excuse the Suns and let them play because the Suns are media darlings and draw in huge amounts of revenue, but that would be destroying the league.
The league suspended Ewing for having his foot on the line because that was the written rule, Ewing was NOT excused in an arguable MORE important game in the playoffs. The rule was subsequently changed but the message is clear, once the rule is there, the league will follow that rule word for word, why is it that out of 450 players in the league, only Diaw and Stoudemire not get this?

Oh, Lord. :dizzy He should have said the rule had no application in this instance--that there was no "altercation," or they were "near" the "bench area," or that the mythical "reasonable person" could disagree about whether the situation met the undefined terms in the rule--not that the rule didn't apply to the Suns across the board, but that it had no application in this instance. Get it?

[Findog]

But why would Stern give a special amnesty and say the rule doesn't apply this time? I really do not understand your argument.
Horry bodychecked Nash, Bell challenged Horry, Horry shoved Bell, and Amare and Diaw left bench. It is about the clearest rule.
It would be nice for Stern to excuse the Suns and let them play because the Suns are media darlings and draw in huge amounts of revenue, but that would be destroying the league.
The league suspended Ewing for having his foot on the line because that was the written rule, Ewing was NOT excused in an arguable MORE important game in the playoffs. The rule was subsequently changed but the message is clear, once the rule is there, the league will follow that rule word for word, why is it that out of 450 players in the league, only Diaw and Stoudemire not get this?

It's a good rule but they should change it this offseason to give themselves a degree of flexibility in meting out punishment. They broke the rule, a rule that is a good one, so punish them, but let's not have it negatively impact a playoff series. Spurs probably would've won anyway but the Suns definitely were negatively impacted by the ruling. They should give teams the option to sit a guy immediately for one game or roll the punishment over to the next regular season for 5 games. If they change teams during the offseason, the new team is just going to have to live with that rolled-over punishment.

That to me would preserve the integrity of the rule and prevent it from negatively impacting a playoff series as well.

[Shred]

That to me would preserve the integrity of the rule and prevent it from negatively impacting a playoff series as well.

No doubt! But seeing as how the league didn't have enough foresight to do that in the first place, they should have at least used some discretion in applying the undefined words in the rule (the rule that is followed, as one poster put it, "word for word").

[Findog]

No doubt! But seeing as how the league didn't have enough foresight to do that in the first place, they should have at least used some discretion in applying the undefined words in the rule (the rule that is followed, as one poster put it, "word for word").

The only wiggle room as far as I can see is that players cannot leave the bench during an "altercation." Since no punches were thrown AFAIK (didn't see the video but some Spurs fans claimed Bell threw one at Horry, if that were true, I can't imagine the League would've missed it) and it was just Nash and Horry jostling and exchanging words, the League could've said this didnt fit the definition of an altercation and left it alone. I mean the rule worked out fine as it is: they took several steps onto the court, the assistants pulled them back before they could do anything, no harm, no foul. But they did go out onto the court and the League decided this was an "altercation." Using that as your guide, they left themselves no wiggle room.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, Lord. :dizzy He should have said the rule had no application in this instance--that there was no "altercation," or they were "near" the "bench area," or that the mythical "reasonable person" could disagree about whether the situation met the undefined terms in the rule--not that the rule didn't apply to the Suns across the board, but that it had no application in this instance. Get it?But it clearly did have an application in this instance.

[ChumpDumper]

No doubt! But seeing as how the league didn't have enough foresight to do that in the first place, they should have at least used some discretion in applying the undefined words in the rule (the rule that is followed, as one poster put it, "word for word").The league had plenty of foresight since they had already changed the rule to not suspend a guy standing near the bench with his feet partially over the sideline.

Everything would have been fine had Amare and Boris stayed near the bench.

Even if they had their feet partially over the sideline.

[FromWayDowntown]

Two things -- though I still can't believe that Suns fans are gripping on this:

1. All things remaining the same, if the altercation involving Horry and Bell had taken place on the opposite side of the floor, there's no doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw would have been a significant distance onto the playing floor. In that instance, I also don't think there would be any room to argue that they were in the vicinity of the bench, unless the lane line nearest the bench is considered to be within the vicinity of the bench. I don't think that a player is somehow exempt from the rule because the altercation he's responding to happens to be on the adjacent sideline and his gallop to enter the fray happens to end before he reaches the end of the coaching box.

2. The League has already taken up the issue of revising the rule. During the Finals, Commissioner Stern went on Dan Patrick's show and told the whole nation that he, David Stern, had asked the committee to consider a change; the committee refused. The rule remains the same.

[cherylsteele]

Knew THAT was coming!!!

"Ok ok...so Duncan doesn't outplay KG, but we meant that Duncan owns KG when it comes to rings".

:lol :lol
The only reason KG had higher stats than Timmy is because he was really the only player on those T-Wolves teams that were any good.....HE HAD TO PLAY LIKE THAT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN. which he didn't most of the time. Just goes to show a good team can beat a one-man team almost all of the time.

[FromWayDowntown]

That to me would preserve the integrity of the rule and prevent it from negatively impacting a playoff series as well.

Don't want to have to face a summer of thinking that your playoff series was negatively impacted? Don't leave the bench during an altercation.

You know, Baron Davis put a much more substantial hit on Derek Fisher in Game 4 of the UTH/GST series than anything that Horry considered doing to Nash. Remarkably, every single guy on the Utah bench stayed within the vicinity of the bench and nobody got suspended.

During the NJ/CLE series, the teams traded big hits at one point and nobody from either team left the vicinity of the bench during those altercations.

It's a remarkably efficient system. Those who control themselves and abide by the rules aren't suspended.

[Shred]

Don't want to have to face a summer of thinking that your playoff series was negatively impacted? Don't leave the bench during an altercation.

You know, Baron Davis put a much more substantial hit on Derek Fisher in Game 4 of the UTH/GST series than anything that Horry considered doing to Nash. Remarkably, every single guy on the Utah bench stayed within the vicinity of the bench and nobody got suspended.

During the NJ/CLE series, the teams traded big hits at one point and nobody from either team left the vicinity of the bench during those altercations.

It's a remarkably efficient system. Those who control themselves and abide by the rules aren't suspended.

No, it's not the bench, it's the "bench area." How do YOU define it?

[Shred]

The league had plenty of foresight since they had already changed the rule to not suspend a guy standing near the bench with his feet partially over the sideline.

Everything would have been fine had Amare and Boris stayed near the bench.

Even if they had their feet partially over the sideline.

What is "near the bench?"

[ShoogarBear]

No, it's not the bench, it's the "bench area." How do YOU define it?Jazz players clearly had no problem with the definition.

[ChumpDumper]

Everything would have been fine had Amare and Boris stayed near the bench.

Even if they had their feet partially over the sideline.

[Shred]

If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to bitch, would you?

[FromWayDowntown]

No, it's not the bench, it's the "bench area." How do YOU define it?

Well, all of those guys stayed within the bench area.

I'll define bench area the same way that I did in my earlier post -- if Stoudemire and Diaw had been responding to an incident on the opposite side of the floor, they would have been 10-20 feet onto the playing floor. Are you going to tell me that they would have been in the bench area in that circumstance.

I'm absolutely sure that a rule compelling players to stay within the bench area doesn't contemplate players being 10-20 feet away from the bench.

[Findog]

Don't want to have to face a summer of thinking that your playoff series was negatively impacted? Don't leave the bench during an altercation.

Well, I'm not a Suns fan, but as a basketball fan, I would prefer that the League this summer adds some flexibility in meting out punishment.


You know, Baron Davis put a much more substantial hit on Derek Fisher in Game 4 of the UTH/GST series than anything that Horry considered doing to Nash. Remarkably, every single guy on the Utah bench stayed within the vicinity of the bench and nobody got suspended

And if one of the Utah players had mimicked AS/BD's actions, my stance would remain the same.

[ChumpDumper]

If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to bitch, would you?There was no way he could have said that, so it's moot.

[FromWayDowntown]

If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to bitch, would you?

Curiously, we're not the ones who are shrieking about it being a bad rule. You are. I'm not bitching about anything; other than "bitching" about the asinine nature of your takes on this matter, I haven't observed that ChumpDumper, Spurminator, or anyone else who is participating in this oh-so-timely discussion is bitching about what happened.

If Stern had said that Stoudemire and Diaw had remained near the bench, though, I think he would have had some significant problems dealing with future occurrences similar to this one. He would either have to say that the rule doesn't mean what it says or that it should be applied differently if the wrong players happen to violate the rule at an important time. I don't think either result is particularly tenable.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm not a Suns fan, but as a basketball fan, I would prefer that the League this summer adds some flexibility in meting out punishment.Considering what the rule is in place to prevent, the punishmant is fitting.
And if one of the Utah players had mimicked AS/BD's actions, my stance would remain the same.They didn't, that was the whole point.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I'm not a Suns fan, but as a basketball fan, I would prefer that the League this summer adds some flexibility in meting out punishment.

Stern already asked them to consider something like that. They said no.


And if one of the Utah players had mimicked AS/BD's actions, my stance would remain the same.

So, you're cool with players leaving the bench during altercations and possibly creating even more havoc than already exists? You think punishments should be different if the act happens to occur at an inopportune time for a team?

Yeah, you'll never get me to agree with that. And, to this point at least, the league's owners are on my side of that disagreement.

[Shred]

Curiously, we're not the ones who are shrieking about it being a bad rule. You are. I'm not bitching about anything; other than "bitching" about the asinine nature of your takes on this matter, I haven't observed that ChumpDumper, Spurminator, or anyone else who is participating in this oh-so-timely discussion is bitching about what happened.

If Stern had said that Stoudemire and Diaw had remained near the bench, though, I think he would have had some significant problems dealing with future occurrences similar to this one. He would either have to say that the rule doesn't mean what it says or that it should be applied differently if the wrong players happen to violate the rule at an important time. I don't think either result is particularly tenable.

Future occurrences could be evaluated based on their particular circumstances, too. It wouldn't have changed anything, just like the outcome of the Kings pre-season game incident didn't change anything. My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....

[Shred]

There was no way he could have said that, so it's moot.

Right, because the definition of "bench area" is carved in stone. :rolleyes

[samikeyp]

My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles

But again, (and again...being serious) wouldn't that be not following the rules?

Where do we draw the line?

[ChumpDumper]

Right, because the definition of "bench area" is carved in stone.Established by precedent.

Stay near the bench.

You can even have your feet over the sideline.

How difficult is that?

[ChumpDumper]

Future occurrences could be evaluated based on their particular circumstances, too.Why? Just stay near the bench and you don't get suspended.
It wouldn't have changed anything, just like the outcome of the Kings pre-season game incident didn't change anything. My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....It was decided on the court. The Suns lost in six.

[FromWayDowntown]

My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....

No, he couldn't have. Unless you're willing to say that near the bench doesn't really mean near the bench if the right players are involved at the right time, the rule says what it says. There's no reasonable interpretation terms like "near the bench" or "altercation" that would have provided the league with any discretion in that instance.

Like I said before, if the league had said the rule didn't apply in this case, it would either: (1) created an extraordinarily slippery slope that applied a strict liability rule on a results-oriented basis -- contrary to what the league's owners want; or (2) have been forced to admit that it was making a special exception BECAUSE it was Amare Stoudemire and BECAUSE it was an important playoff game. Neither result strikes me as a good one for the league and either suggests strongly that the league can be pushed off of enforcement of its rules for some hoped-for minor improvement in television ratings.

[FromWayDowntown]

If the Suns get KG, I'm pretty sure that he won't be leaving the bench area during any altercations. The way that he backed down from Manu Ginobili a couple of years ago was simply priceless. Absolutely priceless.

[samikeyp]

If the Suns get KG, I'm pretty sure that he won't be leaving the bench area during any altercations. The way that he backed down from Manu Ginobili a couple of years ago was simply priceless. Absolutely priceless.

:lol Forgot about that.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, dead momma smack is the extent of KG's badassery.

[samikeyp]

Yeah, dead momma smack is the extent of KG's badassery.

and that worked really well for him too.

[Shred]

No, he couldn't have. Unless you're willing to say that near the bench doesn't really mean near the bench if the right players are involved at the right time, the rule says what it says. There's no reasonable interpretation terms like "near the bench" or "altercation" that would have provided the league with any discretion in that instance.

Like I said before, if the league had said the rule didn't apply in this case, it would either: (1) created an extraordinarily slippery slope that applied a strict liability rule on a results-oriented basis -- contrary to what the league's owners want; or (2) have been forced to admit that it was making a special exception BECAUSE it was Amare Stoudemire and BECAUSE it was an important playoff game. Neither result strikes me as a good one for the league and either suggests strongly that the league can be pushed off of enforcement of its rules for some hoped-for minor improvement in television ratings.

First: I'm not saying what "the bench area" is. I'm asking what YOU think it should be defined as. If it doesn't have any definition, doesn't that give Stern some leeway?

Second: "Extraordinarily slippery slope?" Oh, BS. The ruling in the Kings' case didn't have drastic consequences. Don't be so dramatic.

[ChumpDumper]

First: I'm not saying what "the bench area" is. I'm asking what YOU think it should be defined as. If it doesn't have any definition, doesn't that give Stern some leeway?Yes. Given the case that led to the rule change, it allows the player standing in the bench area to have his feet partially over the sideline.

[FromWayDowntown]

First: I'm not saying what "the bench area" is. I'm asking what YOU think it should be defined as. If it doesn't have any definition, doesn't that give Stern some leeway?

Second: "Extraordinarily slippery slope?" Oh, BS. The ruling in the Kings' case didn't have drastic consequences. Don't be so dramatic.

1. I've told you that I think "the bench area" is, at the very least, defined to mean at least within 10 feet. I think the definition is probably even more restrictive than that, frankly, since 10 feet from the bench could create the very trouble that the rule is intended to prevent. But there's no doubt in the case that you can't let go that each of the culprits was more than 10 feet away from the bench. That's enough. You want Stern to have some leeway, but I'm saying to you that if he decided that these guys didn't leave the bench area, there would be very few circumstances, short of players crossing the halfcourt line to enter the fray, in which the rule would ever apply. I'll take it from the Commissioner that the owners don't want the rule applied in that fashion.

2. The ruling in the Kings case was an extraordinary circumstance. Stern has made clear, since then, that even in circumstances similar to those that occurred between SAC and LAL that players leaving the bench to engage in altercations anywhere in the building won't be tolerated. Ask DJ M'benga or Antonio Davis about the Commissioner's commitment to that view.

[Shred]

1. I've told you that I think "the bench area" is, at the very least, defined to mean at least within 10 feet. I think the definition is probably even more restrictive than that, frankly, since 10 feet from the bench could create the very trouble that the rule is intended to prevent. But there's no doubt in the case that you can't let go that each of the culprits was more than 10 feet away from the bench. That's enough. You want Stern to have some leeway, but I'm saying to you that if he decided that these guys didn't leave the bench area, there would be very few circumstances, short of players crossing the halfcourt line to enter the fray, in which the rule would ever apply. I'll take it from the Commissioner that the owners don't want the rule applied in that fashion.

Why not 9 feet, 9 inches?

[ChumpDumper]

Why not control yourself from running 10 feet from the bench?

[Reggie Miller]

I'm not even primarily a Spurs fan and these whining Suns fans still astound me. What in the @#$% does this crap have to do with KG coming to the Suns? Oh yeah, KG isn't retarded and wouldn't have left the bench area. Clearly, the Suns are now the favorites.

[ambchang]

Oh, Lord. :dizzy He should have said the rule had no application in this instance--that there was no "altercation," or they were "near" the "bench area," or that the mythical "reasonable person" could disagree about whether the situation met the undefined terms in the rule--not that the rule didn't apply to the Suns across the board, but that it had no application in this instance. Get it?
That would be out right biased to benefit the Suns, and why would Stern do that?
There was clearly a altercation, both players were at least 15 feet away from the bench area on a 90-foot court, how could you explain either not being that case? It had application, and the application is that two players were not able to follow a rule where 400+ players were able to follow year after year for a decade (or at least know the consequences). Everybody knew it was coming, the commentators were talking about them being suspended right after the play. Why a basketball fan like yourself could not understand this after two months is the part I don't get.

[ambchang]

It's a good rule but they should change it this offseason to give themselves a degree of flexibility in meting out punishment. They broke the rule, a rule that is a good one, so punish them, but let's not have it negatively impact a playoff series. Spurs probably would've won anyway but the Suns definitely were negatively impacted by the ruling. They should give teams the option to sit a guy immediately for one game or roll the punishment over to the next regular season for 5 games. If they change teams during the offseason, the new team is just going to have to live with that rolled-over punishment.

That to me would preserve the integrity of the rule and prevent it from negatively impacting a playoff series as well.

Every team would immediately take the 5-game regular season punishment for obvious reasons, but what about trades? What about retirements? And with every single theory out there, punishment has to be clear and immediate to be effective. The rule is a good rule, and has stopped bench-clearing brawls for a good part of a decade (Artest incident being the exception). And bench-clearing brawls was plaguing the league in the mid 90s. The Knicks, Heat, and coincidentally the Suns were involved in those brawls that negatively impacted the league's image.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why not 9 feet, 9 inches?

Fine. 9 feet, 9 inches away from the bench is not in the bench area. In fact, I think a player is "not in the bench area" for purposes of the rule if he takes more than 2 or 3 steps away from the bench.

[ambchang]

What is "near the bench?"
It certainly does not mean outside the arena, in the locker room, or 15 feet from the bench.
You can argue that this rule is stupid, which I think it is not and was proven by the committee rejecting the rule change, but there is absolutely no way you can argue that Amare and Boris was near the bench during the altercation.
For a guy who is propagating the spirit of the rule, you sure are spending much time trying to argue semantics and nail down the specifics in terms of defining the near terms in terms of feet and inches.

[ambchang]

If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to bitch, would you?

Why would Spurs fan bitch when the Spurs were not penalized in the situation? For the longest time, I thought taking an incident that is two months old and asking for peferrential treatment, while crying "No fair" all along would constitute as bitching.

[ambchang]

Why not 9 feet, 9 inches?
So you are asking for the league to go back a decade, and use the rule that got Ewing suspended? Sure, but that would get Amare suspended as well.
What would your take be? Suspend every player unless it was a Suns player who averaged over 8 ppg, or 3 rpg in the playoffs against a team that has traditionally given the Suns problems?

[Obstructed_View]

Since Amare ran completely out onto the court, past Steve Nash, out of the coach's box, and toward Robert Horry, isn't this whole discussion moot?

[ambchang]

Since Amare ran completely out onto the court, past Steve Nash, out of the coach's box, and toward Robert Horry, isn't this whole discussion moot?
But we have to make sure he went past 9 feet 9 inches.

[SRJ]

This rule should NEVER be changed at all, and the bloody, mangled face of Rudy Tomjanovich after taking a Kermit Washington haymaker should be justification enough.

If something that violent and gruesome could result from players entering an altercation, then a hard line rule aimed at preventing the escalation of an altercation must remain on the books. Really, I'm surprised this rule was enacted so long after the Rudy T incident.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

This rule should NEVER be changed at all, and the bloody, mangled face of Rudy Tomjanovich after taking a Kermit Washington haymaker should be justification enough.

If something that violent and gruesome could result from players entering an altercation, then a hard line rule aimed at preventing the escalation of an altercation must remain on the books. Really, I'm surprised this rule was enacted so long after the Rudy T incident.

I'd like to preface this by according to the rules, both Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire should be suspended. So no argument there.

But people have to recognize the fact that Rudy T was a complete freak accident. You can't make a bunch of knee jerk reactions about one crazy accident. What you do is you change the rule to say that anybody involved in the "escalation of a conflict will be dealt with accordinly by the league." In most other instances of NBA discipline, rarely do we see such set in stone rules like this. A rule that can adapt to circumstances and allow for mitigating factors allows for fair judgements.

I mean Rudy T was in 1977. That's almost a twenty year period in which there wasn't this hard line rule and nobody else was seriously hurt.

[ChumpDumper]

The rule is about the image of the league as well as the players' safety.

It's all worth it.

[Leetonidas]

My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....

Oh my God, shut the fuck up and stop whining about this shit already. Stern didn't "flex his muscles," he followed a rule. Your team's dumbass players left the bench, and it's against the rules. They got suspended. DEAL WITH IT. How was he going to be more flexible? Suspend Amare and Diaw for the first half of Game 5? If Nash hadn't flopped like a bitch, it wouldn't have even looked as bad and there wouldn't even have been an altercation.

I think it's obvious that Sun Fan and the Phoenix organization are pansies. The owners got together and the rule was not changed. That should tell you something. It's Amare and Diaw's fault they got suspended. No one else's.

No disrespect Shred, but I am really getting tired of hearing this. Move on already.

[ChumpDumper]

You really should disrespect Shred.

[PM5K]

Fine. 9 feet, 9 inches away from the bench is not in the bench area. In fact, I think a player is "not in the bench area" for purposes of the rule if he takes more than 2 or 3 steps away from the bench.



Regular steps or Manu steps?

[Findog]

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?

[ChumpDumper]

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?It wasn't Nash, mavfan.

Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are. :toast

Stick to fishing.

[FromWayDowntown]

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?

Are you really contending that there was no altercation between Bell and Horry?

[td4mvp21]

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?

The thing is, none of the Spurs players actually started the altercation. Horry started walking off but all the Suns players rushed toward him and tried to fight him, because their poor little MVP fell down. That's when the altercation started. It was an altercation, Amare and Diaw left the bench the rule was violated. I don't know why this simple logic turns into a big argument and involves so many Stern conspiracy theories.

[Leetonidas]

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?
You guys know what the fuck an altercation is. It shouldn't need to be defined.

[samikeyp]

IMO in this case it should be.

An altercation can be anything from arguing to trading punches.


Per dictionary.com:
altercation--
A heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.
A vehement quarrel.
noisy quarrel


There is too much gray area.

[ambchang]

IMO in this case it should be.

An altercation can be anything from arguing to trading punches.


Per dictionary.com:
altercation--
A heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.
A vehement quarrel.
noisy quarrel


There is too much gray area.
But from that argument, you can be damn sure that an elbow shove is an altercation. There could be a grey area in other cases, but in this, it's very black and white.

[ChumpDumper]

The rule is fine.

Stay near the bench.

[Soul_Patch]

Wow...i cant believe there are suns fans still whining after all this time.

[Findog]

The thing is, none of the Spurs players actually started the altercation.

Horry started the entire sequence on a cheap-shot flagrant foul. For what it's worth, I didn't think suspending Horry for two games was necessary. He got a flagrant, he was ejected, that should've been the end of it on his end.

What is your definition of an "altercation"? Jostling and harsh words exchanged? Because it must be for that incident to count as one.

[Findog]

It wasn't Nash, mavfan.

Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are. :toast

Stick to fishing.

Did Bell throw a punch at Horry? Did Horry throw a punch at Bell? I have to believe that if Bell had, he would've been suspended as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Horry started the entire sequence on a cheap-shot flagrant foul. For what it's worth, I didn't think suspending Horry for two games was necessary. He got a flagrant, he was ejected, that should've been the end of it on his end.

What is your definition of an "altercation"? Jostling and harsh words exchanged? Because it must be for that incident to count as one.You just answered your own question.

Stay near the bench.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Bell throw a punch at Horry? Did Horry throw a punch at Bell? I have to believe that if Bell had, he would've been suspended as well.Don't you mean Nash, mavfan?

[samikeyp]

But from that argument, you can be damn sure that an elbow shove is an altercation. There could be a grey area in other cases, but in this, it's very black and white.

Very true.

[Findog]

Don't you mean Nash, mavfan?

Did Nash throw a punch? All I remember is him overselling the flagrant, getting up in Horry's face and attempting to jostle with him before being held back by his teammates.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Nash throw a punch? All I remember is him overselling the flagrant, getting up in Horry's face and attempting to jostle with him before being held back by his teammates.

The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?Did you actually see this play?

[Findog]

You just answered your own question.

Stay near the bench.

That's pretty weak. Altercation to me is Knicks-Nuggets, Pistons-Pacers.

[Findog]

I put fight in scare quotes for a reason.

[Johnny RIngo]

Steve Trash and his blatant flopping fooled his own teammates. He exaggerated the love tap from Horry by flailing his feet in the air like he was hit by a train. Funny how he instantly got up a second later.

[ChumpDumper]

That's pretty weak. Altercation to me is Knicks-Nuggets, Pistons-Pacers.Well, you're stupid. What can I say.

[Findog]

Well, you're stupid. What can I say.

"My argument is weak, I have to resort to ad hominem."

[ChumpDumper]

No, your stupidity is a consistent trend. It was an altercation.

[ambchang]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp4UF4Av_g0

Here is the video for the millionth time. Check the 1:05 to 1:10 mark, Horry shoved his elbow in Bell's throat, what else do you want for it to be warranted an altercation? Horry grabbing a 2x4 and smashed Bell's head so hard his eyes popped out? Bell cutting Horry's ears off with rusty razors, pour gasoline on him while dancing to "Stuck in the middle with you"?

[Johnny RIngo]

The only shitty thing about the suspensions is that it gave S0ns fans an excuse to keep bitching for the next few months. It comes as no surprise why the S0ns have never won a 'ship. Their players and fanbase prefers to whine off the court instead of proving themselves in the game. Without the media riding their dick they really are a one trick pony:

Nash's 2 MVPs are the biggest joke of all time. Talk about undeserved. Thanks to the ignorant 60 year old white guys that know fuck all about BBall Steve Trash gets a free pass into the hall of fame. Give those MVPs back to Shaq and Kobe. Thanks to Nash the MVP award's been tarnished forever.

Marion being a DPOY candidate...LOL. It's funny how this loser can't even make the All-Defensive team. Probably cause the defensive teams are voted on by COACHES and not the clueless media.

[Findog]

No, your stupidity is a consistent trend. It was an altercation.

More ad hominem. Sigh.

[ChumpDumper]

More stupidity. Sigh.

[Findog]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp4UF4Av_g0

Here is the video for the millionth time. Check the 1:05 to 1:10 mark, Horry shoved his elbow in Bell's throat, what else do you want for it to be warranted an altercation? Horry grabbing a 2x4 and smashed Bell's head so hard his eyes popped out? Bell cutting Horry's ears off with rusty razors, pour gasoline on him while dancing to "Stuck in the middle with you"?

A punch thrown. No punches, no altercation.

[Findog]

More stupidity. Sigh.


More insecurity. :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

A punch thrown. No punches, no altercation.Punches aren't necessary for an altercation. Sorry.

[ambchang]

A punch thrown. No punches, no altercation.
If a punch thrown is needed, then the rule would have said a punch thrown. Would a kick in the head be an altercation then? So how about Horry slapping Bell with an open hand, knocked him unconscious and kicking him in the head repeatedly untill he bleeds out of his ears? That wouldn't be an altercation because no punches were thrown.
So Bell cutting Horry's ears off and pouring gasoline on him while listening to "Stuck in the middle with you" is not altercation, because there were no punches thrown, this really enlightens me.

[ChumpDumper]

There is actually a rule about punches, so the bench rule would have mentioned punches if that was going to be the criterion.

Sorry, you're wrong mavfan.

[td4mvp21]

Horry started the entire sequence on a cheap-shot flagrant foul. For what it's worth, I didn't think suspending Horry for two games was necessary. He got a flagrant, he was ejected, that should've been the end of it on his end.

What is your definition of an "altercation"? Jostling and harsh words exchanged? Because it must be for that incident to count as one.

That was a hard playoff foul. Don't believe me? Watch any old school NBA playoff game, and this foul would have been ordinary and NOT flagrant. The only reason it is now is because of pussies who complain about the officiating and physicality of games (See: Suns players/coaches/owner and Mavs players/coaches/owner). It was not necessary, that's a no-brainer. But it wasn't worthy of an altercation.

Bell actually tried to swing at Horry, if I'm not mistaken. Marion was right up in Horry's face, the only thing separating them was Spurs players and refs. So tell me who started the altercation again? Did you even watch the game?

[Findog]

If a punch thrown is needed, then the rule would have said a punch thrown. Would a kick in the head be an altercation then? So how about Horry slapping Bell with an open hand, knocked him unconscious and kicking him in the head repeatedly untill he bleeds out of his ears? That wouldn't be an altercation because no punches were thrown.
So Bell cutting Horry's ears off and pouring gasoline on him while listening to "Stuck in the middle with you" is not altercation, because there were no punches thrown, this really enlightens me.

Well obviously the NBA doesn't care about kicks to the head or the shins, because Bowen has never been suspended for it. I think Horry slapping the shit out of Bowen repeatedly like the scenario you describe would count as a punch, even if it isn't close-fisted.

Reenacting a scene from a Tarantino movie doesn't really fall under the realm of the realistic, that really enlightens me.

[td4mvp21]

Well obviously the NBA doesn't care about kicks to the head or the shins, because Bowen has never been suspended for it. I think Horry slapping the shit out of Bowen repeatedly like the scenario you describe would count as a punch, even if it isn't close-fisted.

Reenacting a scene from a Tarantino movie doesn't really fall under the realm of the realistic, that really enlightens me.

Awesome, now you're bitching about Bowen, on top of a rule that didn't even effect your team. Nice job.

[Findog]

That was a hard playoff foul. Don't believe me? Watch any old school NBA playoff game, and this foul would have been ordinary and NOT flagrant. The only reason it is now is because of pussies who complain about the officiating and physicality of games (See: Suns players/coaches/owner and Mavs players/coaches/owner). It was not necessary, that's a no-brainer. But it wasn't worthy of an altercation.

Bell actually tried to swing at Horry, if I'm not mistaken. Marion was right up in Horry's face, the only thing separating them was Spurs players and refs. So tell me who started the altercation again? Did you even watch the game?

I agree that back in the eighties that would've been a hard playoff foul and Horry's foul wouldn't cause Bill Laimbeer to blink twice. Under the current rules, it's a flagrant. There's also no question it was a cheap shot. You can argue that Horry was frustrated that Nash was dribbling hard up the court instead of standing around waiting for the touch foul to come, but Horry initiated the sequence.

[Findog]

Awesome, now you're bitching about Bowen, on top of a rule that didn't even effect your team. Nice job.

Other poster brought up a hypothetical scenario involving kicks to the head, not me, and there is in fact an example of an NBA player kicking another player in the head. I've seen that clip over and over, and I'm honestly asking. Did Bowen ever receive any disciplinary measures for the kick to Wally's face?

[ChumpDumper]

In case you didn't read it.
There is actually a rule about punches, so the bench rule would have mentioned punches if that was going to be the criterion.

Sorry, you're wrong mavfan.

[td4mvp21]

I agree that back in the eighties that would've been a hard playoff foul and Horry's foul wouldn't cause Bill Laimbeer to blink twice. Under the current rules, it's a flagrant. There's also no question it was a cheap shot. You can argue that Horry was frustrated that Nash was dribbling hard up the court instead of standing around waiting for the touch foul to come, but Horry initiated the sequence.

Horry initiated contact. He had nothing to do with the altercation that took place afterwards. Go watch the replay and tell me who starts the actual altercation. I'll give you a hint, it's not Horry.

[MadDog73]

Well obviously the NBA doesn't care about kicks to the head or the shins, because Bowen has never been suspended for it.

:rolleyes

WTF, dude. Now you just sound like a bitter Suns Fans.

[ChumpDumper]

Other poster brought up a hypothetical scenario involving kicks to the head, not me, and there is in fact an example of an NBA player kicking another player in the head. I've seen that clip over and over, and I'm honestly asking. Did Bowen ever receive any disciplinary measures for the kick to Wally's face?He got called for a foul, which is all that was necessary.

[FromWayDowntown]

There is actually a rule about punches, so the bench rule would have mentioned punches if that was going to be the criterion.

Sorry, you're wrong mavfan.

Absolutely. The NBA rules also specifically mention fighting fouls as well. I don't think the bench rule depends upon there either being a punch thrown or a fight as defined elsewhere.

It's really a very simple concept: the league wants to limit the possibility that anyone other than the 10 guys on the floor might get involved if a situation escalates. One sure-fire way to do that is to require those who aren't in the game to stay near the bench area. And one way to ensure that those who must stay near the bench area do so is to impose a draconian punishment like a one-game suspension, no questions asked. Even if it doesn't become a full-fledged fight, even if there are no punches thrown, even if the players intent was peaceful.

In the end, the onus was on Stoudemire and Diaw to do what the other 12 bench players managed to do that evening -- to stay in the bench area when there was an altercation.

I don't understand why so many remain interested in trying to excuse Amare and Diaw from acting like jackasses.

[MadDog73]

I agree that back in the eighties that would've been a hard playoff foul and Horry's foul wouldn't cause Bill Laimbeer to blink twice. Under the current rules, it's a flagrant. There's also no question it was a cheap shot.

And he was suspended two games for it.

Are you saying Horry wasn't punished enough?

[ambchang]

Well obviously the NBA doesn't care about kicks to the head or the shins, because Bowen has never been suspended for it. I think Horry slapping the shit out of Bowen repeatedly like the scenario you describe would count as a punch, even if it isn't close-fisted.

Reenacting a scene from a Tarantino movie doesn't really fall under the realm of the realistic, that really enlightens me.
It wasn't anything about realistic, just pointing out how glaringly lacking your definition is. Before the Palace brawl, people would have thought that it was out of the realm of the realistic. Before Melo clocking Collins and backpeddling 90 feet, nobody thought that it would be realistic to have an NBA chicken out like that, but here we are. And it helps to show what an altercation is. Was the scene in the Tarantino movie an altercation? Or was it not?
And where did Bowen kick someone in the shins? Do you want to show the video as well?
So far, an altercation, as defined in a dictionary, is not accepted by you because you like to randomly come up with definitions that suits your point. An altercation does not just include a punch, or a slap, or whatever you felt like putting into it, it has been defined earlier on in the thread, and sure as hell an elbow shove to the neck is an altercation, and the subsequently having referees and teammates pulling people back is an altercation.

[Obstructed_View]

More ad hominem. Sigh.
An ad hominem argument is intended to discredit one's argument by criticizing the one making the argument. Since your argument requires no discrediting, due to the fact that it is completely stupid, calling you stupid could be considered simply a logical conclusion. If he'd taken any two of your stupid arguments into account, we could have called it a syllogism.

And just for the record, it wasn't a cheap shot. By rule it was an offensive foul on Nash.

[Findog]

And he was suspended two games for it.

Are you saying Horry wasn't punished enough?

Actually, upthread I said his ejection was enough as is. I didn't want to see Horry suspended for two games and I didn't want to see Diaw or AS suspended either. It's the playoffs, let 'em play.

[ChumpDumper]

and if they aren't playing, let 'em stay near the bench.

[cole]

what a ridiculous argument.

duncan v. kg, that is. i'm tired of the amare argument as well.

[Obstructed_View]

Actually, upthread I said his ejection was enough as is. I didn't want to see Horry suspended for two games and I didn't want to see Diaw or AS suspended either. It's the playoffs, let 'em play.
Nobody wanted to see anyone suspended, but saying that it was somehow within the commissioner's power not to suspend them is ludicrous.

Duncan >>>>>>>>> KG.

[Findog]

An ad hominem argument is intended to discredit one's argument by criticizing the one making the argument. Since your argument requires no discrediting, due to the fact that it is completely stupid, calling you stupid could be considered simply a logical conclusion. If he'd taken any two of your stupid arguments into account, we could have called it a syllogism.

And just for the record, it wasn't a cheap shot. By rule it was an offensive foul on Nash.

Hey, I'm on a Spursboard, I know I'm going against the grain, here at least. But the rule about leaving the bench applies only if the action on the court constitutes an "altercation." Where is the specific language in the rulebook that defines an "altercation"? Is it punches being thrown? Pushing and shoving? A full-on Malice at Palace-style brawl?

If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple. But since the whole thing ending up being nothing of consequence, no harm, no foul, what is the point in suspending two guys over nothing? The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.

Since the Spurs > Suns and would've won the series suspensions or not, I find it surprising that Spurs fans are so insistent on defending a chickenshit decision by the League office.

[Findog]

Nobody wanted to see anyone suspended, but saying that it was somehow within the commissioner's power not to suspend them is ludicrous.

Duncan >>>>>>>>> KG.

He had enough wiggle room to define it as not constituting an altercation, thus not triggering the leave the bench rule. It's just common sense. Either not define it as an altercation or iif you're so insistent that little cripple fight constitued one, then roll the punishment over to the regular season. It's the playoffs, these things should be settled on the court.

[ChumpDumper]

If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple.It was, so why are you still whining about it.
The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.They were stupid for walking out and their coaches were doubly stupid for bitching to the refs first and not immediately restraining the players mere minutes after warning the players not to get involved in any hijinks. All they had to do was control themselves. Why should they be rewarded for their lack of self-control?

[MadDog73]

Since the Spurs > Suns and would've won the series suspensions or not, I find it surprising that Spurs fans are so insistent on defending a chickenshit decision by the League office.


I agree Spurs would have won regardless, but I would rather beat them full strength.

The problem is, rules are rules. You can't bend them, especially this rule.

The fact the rule was upheld as is by the NBA owners makes your argument moot:

It's going to stay that way. The point of the rule is to prevent an altercation from getting worse. The rule worked.

The good news for you: If a Spurs player ever gets suspended for this rule, then Spurs fans will have no way to complain.

[ChumpDumper]

He had enough wiggle room to define it as not constituting an altercation, thus not triggering the leave the bench rule.So elbows to the throat are now allowed in the NBA. Brillliant.
It's just common sense.I don't think you understand that phrase.
Either not define it as an altercation or iif you're so insistent that little cripple fight constitued one, then roll the punishment over to the regular season. It's the playoffs, these things should be settled on the court.Players not in the game should stay near the bench.

[Findog]

I agree Spurs would have won regardless, but I would rather beat them full strength.

The problem is, rules are rules. You can't bend them, especially this rule.

The fact the rule was upheld as is by the NBA owners makes your argument moot:

It's going to stay that way. The point of the rule is to prevent an altercation from getting worse. The rule worked.

The good news for you: If a Spurs player ever gets suspended for this rule, then Spurs fans will have no way to complain.

I'm not trying to come across as whining about it, I know it sounds like it. FWIW, I was rooting for San Antonio on account of Finley and Stern's decision made it easier for them to advance.

I'll put it this way: Suppose you have to be at work everyday at 8:00 am. And one day you roll in at 8:01. Yeah, you're late, but only an anal retentive type would dock you for it and find you in non-compliance. Since it was the playoffs, not a meaningless regular season game between Charlotte and Milwaukee, I was hoping Stern would err on the side of letting things be decided on the court, especially since BD and AS's actions led to nothing of consequence.

[ChumpDumper]

II'll put it this way: Suppose you have to be at work everyday at 8:00 am. And one day you roll in at 8:01. Yeah, you're late, but only an anal retentive type would dock you for it and find you in non-compliance. Since it was the playoffs, not a meaningless regular season game between Charlotte and Milwaukee, I was hoping Stern would err on the side of letting things be decided on the court, especially since BD and AS's actions led to nothing of consequence.
This rule's intent is something much more critical to the success of the league than preventing tardiness.

Can't fuck around with that.

[da_suns_fan__]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.

[Spurminator]

lol, dumbass forgot what he started the thread about.

[Findog]

This rule's intent is something much more critical to the success of the league than preventing tardiness.

Can't fuck around with that.

It's an analogy.

[ChumpDumper]

No, spurfans realize just how much two sunfans and one mavfan can whine.

It's astounding.

[ChumpDumper]

It's an analogy.It's an extremely poor analogy because it trivializes the reason the rule exists.

[Johnny RIngo]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.

The ruling was fine. Steve Trash winning MVP twice was a joke. Tainted the MVP award.

[da_suns_fan__]

No, spurfans realize just how much two sunfans and one mavfan can whine.

It's astounding.

For every one post from FindDog or Shred, there's a dozen retorts from Spurs fans.....

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"
:madrun :madrun :madrun

[Johnny RIngo]

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"


Is that what S0ns and Mav fans are saying these days? They should know better. It's pretty obvious that Steve Trash and Dirk tainted the MVP award. Now any white guy with no defense is a lock for the MVP. I predict Okur or Peja wins MVP next year.

[FromWayDowntown]

For every one post from FindDog or Shred, there's a dozen retorts from Spurs fans.....

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"
:madrun :madrun :madrun

Because what Findog and Shred are posting is simply asinine. Sorry that we don't just sit by and let mindless drivel become the words by which this forum is defined.

What's more remarkable to me is that Spurs fans are simply repeating what has been said since the beginning -- that it's a simple rule, that it has no exceptions, that Amare and Boris violated the rule, and that a suspension has always been the punishment for that; its Findog and Shred who are concocting new arguments (or regurgitating old arguments that have long ago been dispelled) in seeking to find some way around the crystal clear justification for the Commisioner's ruling.

Some of the Suns fans who come here have a remarkable capacity to bitch incessantly and mindlessly and then to claim that anyone who responds to their drivel is insecure. Truly, truly remarkable.

[Obstructed_View]

Hey, I'm on a Spursboard, I know I'm going against the grain, here at least. But the rule about leaving the bench applies only if the action on the court constitutes an "altercation." Where is the specific language in the rulebook that defines an "altercation"? Is it punches being thrown? Pushing and shoving? A full-on Malice at Palace-style brawl?
If there were specific language defining an altercation, chances are you'd be taking issue with it, since you are taking issue with the most specifically worded rule in the rulebook, or you wouldn't understand it, since you seem to be inferring that what happened on the floor wasn't clearly an altercation. Since Horry was suspended for his elbow making contact with Bell above the shoulders while teammates and officials struggled to separate them, I'm not sure how it could be any more clear cut than it is.


If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple.
It was, and they did. Therefore it was a good ruling. Thanks for playing, please drive forward.


But since the whole thing ending up being nothing of consequence, no harm, no foul, what is the point in suspending two guys over nothing? The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.
This is why people call you stupid. I choose to call you completely full of shit and blatantly dishonest. Amare RAN onto the court past all the coaches, and only stopped when the referee had to turn away from what he was doing and tell him to get his ass back onto the bench.

Allow me to state that one more time: The official had to turn his back to the altercation and instruct Amare to get back to the bench. The rule didn't work because Amare was out there adding to the confusion, which is exactly what the rule is designed to prevent.

I'm on record as being one of the first, if not THE first person on this message board to say he hoped Amare wouldn't be suspended. Seriously, go look it up. And you are right; the Spurs would have won no matter what. Without Horry's foul the Spurs probably win it in five.

But you guys are trying to argue that what he did wasn't that bad or was somehow not a clear violation of the rules, and as a basketball fan I reject that argument because it's just baseless and ignorant. Amare clearly put his fate into the hands of the league when he left the bench, and he violated the rule so egregiously that the league could not have given him a pass and kept any semblance of credibility.

[Findog]

For every one post from FindDog or Shred, there's a dozen retorts from Spurs fans.....

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"
:madrun :madrun :madrun

Your team would've lost anyway, so it's not tainted. It just would've been nice to watch a series at full-strength for both teams. I want Horry available for those games too.

[Obstructed_View]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.
What ruling? There was no ruling. There was a punishment administered for a violation of the rules. The punishment is spelled out in the rules. Ruling implies a choice. Choice was eliminated when Diaw and Amare chose to leave the bench.

[Obstructed_View]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.
No, it's just fun to shoot holes through the same lame excuse you make for your team melting down. We all know that if you actually thought your team had a chance, they wouldn't have been lobbying to have Bruce Bowen suspended. Twice.

By the way, why do you think the league should have overlooked the rules just for your team?

[da_suns_fan__]

No, it's just fun to shoot holes through the same lame excuse you make for your team melting down. We all know that if you actually thought your team had a chance, they wouldn't have been lobbying to have Bruce Bowen suspended. Twice.

By the way, why do you think the league should have overlooked the rules just for your team?

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!

[ambchang]

Hey, I'm on a Spursboard, I know I'm going against the grain, here at least. But the rule about leaving the bench applies only if the action on the court constitutes an "altercation." Where is the specific language in the rulebook that defines an "altercation"? Is it punches being thrown? Pushing and shoving? A full-on Malice at Palace-style brawl?

If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple. But since the whole thing ending up being nothing of consequence, no harm, no foul, what is the point in suspending two guys over nothing? The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.

Since the Spurs > Suns and would've won the series suspensions or not, I find it surprising that Spurs fans are so insistent on defending a chickenshit decision by the League office.

The whole point of the rule was to prevent incidents from escalating to an uncontrollable level, which this rule has been effective in doing for the last decade.
A chickenshit decision by the league would be to go the popular viewpoint, ignore the rule, and "give a break" the Suns, or something that is directly opposite to what was done in this case.

[ChumpDumper]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!Nah, no altercation when they walked on the court.

Owned.

[ambchang]

For every one post from FindDog or Shred, there's a dozen retorts from Spurs fans.....

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"
:madrun :madrun :madrun
There was this one guy, David Irving, who said the holocaust never happened, then all these people came out and said that he was wrong, I guess by your logic, it just shows how unfounded the holocaust is, while the people who retorts are just a bunch of whiners.

Or simply by your logic, the lesser the response, the more correct the decision was.

So how do you explain all the post explaining why Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw shouldn't be suspended after the suspension was handed down?

[Obstructed_View]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!
Too bad Jones and Elson were smart enough to walk away from each other.

So I ask again: Why do you think the rules shouldn't have to apply to your team when they have to apply to everyone else?

[ambchang]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!
Do you have trouble reading? Go back a few post in this thread, and you will see how this argument was shot down, or any of the threads about the suspensions. Show me a clip of what altercation took place when Duncan and Bowen stepped on the court.

Talking about insecure ... continuously saying that you own people by regurgitating other people's argument that was shot down long ago would be called extremely insecure in my books, but then we will probably go another 17 pages talking about what insecure means.

[Obstructed_View]

Oh, by the way:

TD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>KG.