Suns land Hill

[yourcheatinheart]

Your point was the no one cares about the Spurs. Apparently people do care, if not they wouldn't be spending their money on their merchandise.


your not worth the keystrokes homie, NEXT!!

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

your not worth the keystrokes homie, NEXT!!
Apparently I am since you responded.

[justanotherspursfan]

your not worth the keystrokes homie, NEXT!!
Translation: I was completely owned, so I'm going to slink away now.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:lol :tu

[Doc Jerome]

During the NBA Finals Grant Hill wondered if the Spurs defense was that good or if Cleveland was just that bad. Well, . . . he'll get to see come playoffs if both teams meet. He and all of Phoenix will be crushed if the Spurs eliminate the Suns yet again.

[yourcheatinheart]

During the NBA Finals Grant Hill wondered if the Spurs defense was that good or if Cleveland was just that bad. Well, . . . he'll get to see come playoffs if both teams meet. He and all of Phoenix will be crushed if the Spurs eliminate the Suns yet again.


it turned out the Cavs SUCK!!! :lol

[yourcheatinheart]

Translation: I was completely owned, so I'm going to slink away now.



translation: the only thing you guys own are *'s!

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

translation: the only thing you guys own are *'s!
And you.

[justanotherspursfan]

it turned out the Cavs SUCK!!! :lol
So how does it go again? Nobody the Spurs played was any good, except for the Suns? And the Suns only lost because they got jobbed by the league office because, what, they wanted to ensure the "LOWEST RATED FINALS EVER!!" as you put it?

:dizzy :dizzy :dizzy

Good luck with that tinfoil hat of yours.

[yourcheatinheart]

So how does it go again? Nobody the Spurs played was any good, except for the Suns? And the Suns only lost because they got jobbed by the league office because, what, they wanted to ensure the "LOWEST RATED FINALS EVER!!" as you put it?

:dizzy :dizzy :dizzy

Good luck with that tinfoil hat of yours.

who the fuck said that?? while it is in my opinion the league was totally biased towards one team on the whole leaving the bench thing, i don't think the league wanted the Spurs to win, cause honestly who the fuck wants that?? nobody, the proof is in the pudding. we got fucked, cool, can't wait until next year. :ihit

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

i don't think the league wanted the Spurs to win, cause honestly who the fuck wants that??
Us.

[yourcheatinheart]

Us.


:rolleyes

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:rolleyes
Well you didn't know. So I thought I should help you out.

[yourcheatinheart]

Well you didn't know. So I thought I should help you out.


that's me reading the bullshit you write :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

that's me reading the bullshit you write :rolleyes :rolleyes
I'm just responding to your bullshit.

[justanotherspursfan]

who the fuck said that??

Well, I'll have to go with you:


we had you on the ropes and your number 1 fan in the leauge front office saved your ass


can't wait until next year.
Glutton for punishment, I guess.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

What's wrong with me? I keep getting owned. :depressed

[yourcheatinheart]

i didn't write that shit above. i don't know what makes you think the Spurs are superior to the Suns. We all saw the same games last year.

[justanotherspursfan]

i didn't write that shit above.

I don't know if you were responding to me, but here's your post where you said that: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1836587&postcount=245

Welcome to the embarassing world of completely contradicting yourself, AKA The Ownage Zone. :lol :lol :lol


i don't know what makes you think the Spurs are superior to the Suns. We all saw the same games last year.

You're right, we all saw the same games last year. In the playoff series I saw, the Suns lost 4 and only won 2. If the Suns are so much better, why didn't they win more of them? Did they get jobbed in all 4?

Even in the games where no Suns got "unfairly" suspended for violating well-known NBA rules, the Suns still lost more than they won. Sometimes one game turns on a fluke of some kind -- but a 7-game series doesn't. That's why I know the Spurs were superior to the Suns this year, and that's why we have yet another trophy, and the Suns don't.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

i don't know what makes you think the Spurs are superior to the Suns.

My point was never about how the Spurs are superior to the Suns. The hell are you talking about?


We all saw the same games last year.
The ones where we beat you in the semis? I know.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Damn! Owned again!

[yourcheatinheart]

i didn't write the shit above. it said it's quoted by me. my point is i can't wait until next year. in the playoffs you have to admit there has to be a little luck running on your side to hold that trophy and those breaks didn't go for the Suns. it didn't in game 1 when Nash was kicking your ass with his nose busted open and was forced to sit. It didn't go for the Suns when 2 of there studs were suspended for NOTHING for what your piece of shit player did in game 4. the breaks all went your way. it's all good, though because myself and a whole lot of others will always view the Spurs through ** asterick ** eyes :fro

[Fast Dunk_]

:cry

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

i didn't write the shit above. it said it's quoted by me.
No shit.


in the playoffs you have to admit there has to be a little luck running on your side to hold that trophy and those breaks didn't go for the Suns.
Nah.


it didn't in game 1 when Nash was kicking your ass with his nose busted open and was forced to sit.
:lol So you're saying the Suns lost that game just because they were without Nash for about 2 minutes?


It didn't go for the Suns when 2 of there studs were suspended for NOTHING for what your piece of shit player did in game 4.
They should've stayed near the bench.


the breaks all went your way. it's all good, though because myself and a whole lot of others will always view the Spurs through ** asterick ** eyes :fro
I don't give a damn. We're the champs. :king

[justanotherspursfan]

myself and a whole lot of others will always view the Spurs through ** asterick ** eyes :fro
And that's why you deserve to lose.

You think it was fair that the Spurs missed the chance to repeat in 2000 because Duncan was injured? You think Spurs fans liked the 0.4 nonsense in '04? You think the freak Ginobili foul on Dirk went down well in '06? The breaks fall however they fall, but if you're good enough to win anyway, you win. If you're not, you don't.

If the Suns had built a better lead earlier or someone else had stepped up, they could have won game 1, despite the freak Nash injury. They could have taken the series lead by winning game 3. If the Suns had better player discipline, they would never have had their guys suspended for game 5. If they were resilient enough, they could have won game 6 and sent the series back to Phoenix for a deciding game. There were a lot of opportunities.

The Suns did none of those things. They weren't good enough. Accept it like a man, move on, and wait for next year. Maybe your team will do better then. But whining and assigning bogus "asterisks" is for people who will always be losers, even if they win.

[da_suns_fan__]

i didn't write the shit above. it said it's quoted by me. my point is i can't wait until next year. in the playoffs you have to admit there has to be a little luck running on your side to hold that trophy and those breaks didn't go for the Suns. it didn't in game 1 when Nash was kicking your ass with his nose busted open and was forced to sit. It didn't go for the Suns when 2 of there studs were suspended for NOTHING for what your piece of shit player did in game 4. the breaks all went your way. it's all good, though because myself and a whole lot of others will always view the Spurs through ** asterick ** eyes :fro

Amen Brotha! :clap

[da_suns_fan__]

And that's why you deserve to lose.

You think it was fair that the Spurs missed the chance to repeat in 2000 because Duncan was injured? You think Spurs fans liked the 0.4 nonsense in '04? You think the freak Ginobili foul on Dirk went down well in '06? The breaks fall however they fall, but if you're good enough to win anyway, you win. If you're not, you don't.

If the Suns had built a better lead earlier or someone else had stepped up, they could have won game 1, despite the freak Nash injury. They could have taken the series lead by winning game 3. If the Suns had better player discipline, they would never have had their guys suspended for game 5. If they were resilient enough, they could have won game 6 and sent the series back to Phoenix for a deciding game. There were a lot of opportunities.

The Suns did none of those things. They weren't good enough. Accept it like a man, move on, and wait for next year. Maybe your team will do better then. But whining and assigning bogus "asterisks" is for people who will always be losers, even if they win.

But they did win game 4!!!

As Marc Stein put it, they "Took control of the series" and won back homecourt advantage.

I would have like to have seen the teams decide the outcome...not the league's ruling.

What I don't see is Spurs fans claiming they would have won it anyway.

I thinks its obvious the Suns were the superior team and definately would have won game 5.

Spurs would have been KILLED in a game seven in Phoenix. Not to mention who knows how the Suns or Spurs would have responded with the Suns leading 3-2 in a game six.

The league screwed both teams. Suns never got a fair shot, and the Spurs (especially Tony Parker) keep having to answer the "do you think you would have won if the suspensions never happened?" question.

[UV Ray]

Amen Brotha! :clap

[Ariel]

But they did win game 4!!!

As Marc Stein put it, they "Took control of the series" and won back homecourt advantage.

I would have like to have seen the teams decide the outcome...not the league's ruling.

What I don't see is Spurs fans claiming they would have won it anyway.

I thinks its obvious the Suns were the superior team and definately would have won game 5.

Spurs would have been KILLED in a game seven in Phoenix. Not to mention who knows how the Suns or Spurs would have responded with the Suns leading 3-2 in a game six.

The league screwed both teams. Suns never got a fair shot, and the Spurs (especially Tony Parker) keep having to answer the "do you think you would have won if the suspensions never happened?" question.
Let's leave that game 5 aside. Still, for the Suns to take the series they would have had to beat the Spurs 2 out of 2 times (games 5 and 7). Considering the Suns at full strength only managed to beat the Spurs 2 out of 5 times, one could estimate the odds of one such event happening at 40%. For that to happen twice, the odds would drop to 16%. And though I admit one cannot make such oversimplification of an inherently complex matter, I think that's much closer to reality than that one that assumes because a short handed Suns team put up a fight, a full strength team would have beaten the Spurs. You never know. Maybe they wouldn't have been motivated enough, maybe the starters would have played worse than the backups. Hell, I think it's pretty clear Marion's performances were all significantly less impressive when Stoudemire was on the court, and Kurt Thomas wouldn't have had the chance to contribute as much. And that doesn't even take into account the additional game they would have had to win. So maybe things could have gone different, more than likely not. But where does the certainty the Suns would have moved on come from, I'm not quite sure.

[UV Ray]

Let's leave that game 5 aside. Still, for the Suns to take the series they would have had to beat the Spurs 2 out of 2 times (games 5 and 7). Considering the Suns at full strength only managed to beat the Spurs 2 out of 5 times, one could estimate the odds of one such event happening at 40%. For that to happen twice, the odds would drop to 16%. And though I admit one cannot make such oversimplification of an inherently complex matter, I think that's much closer to reality than that one that assumes because a short handed Suns team put up a fight, a full strength team would have beaten the Spurs. You never know. Maybe they wouldn't have been motivated enough, maybe the starters would have played worse than the backups. Hell, I think it's pretty clear Marion's performances were all significantly less impressive when Stoudemire was on the court, and Kurt Thomas wouldn't have had the chance to contribute as much. And that doesn't even take into account the additional game they would have had to win. So maybe things could have gone different, more than likely not. But where does the certainty the Suns would have moved on come from, I'm not quite sure.

[justanotherspursfan]

What I don't see is Spurs fans claiming they would have won it anyway.
That's because counterfactual conditionals are a waste of time. Yeah, I think the Spurs would have won it anyway, but arguing about what would have happened is pointless.

Grownups, when they fail, don't focus on the breaks that didn't go their way, because they have no control over them. Grownups focus on the parts they can improve on their own and take control of. Making excuses is strictly for the immature.

In the last 9 years, the Spurs have won 4 titles, but they haven't won 5 of them. Some of the losses were brutally close, while others weren't. The losses count the same either way. The team got better by figuring out what they had to do to improve, not by blaming losses on bad breaks or luck.

Some of the Suns seem to get this. Others don't. I doubt your organization will ever win the title until they understand this lesson.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

3 strikes and I'm out!

[IGNORANT MAVS FAN]

But they did win game 4!!!

As Marc Stein put it, they "Took control of the series" and won back homecourt advantage.
The suns lost home court in game 1. In order for the the suns to have control of the series they would of had to have led at some point. But they never did.



I would have like to have seen the teams decide the outcome...not the league's ruling.
Um the league enforced a rule that has been a part of the game for years. Its no wonder the suns cant even win a championship, they cant even remember a simple fucking rule.



What I don't see is Spurs fans claiming they would have won it anyway.
Thats because spurs fans dont need moral victories, but hey whatever suns fan needs to sleep at night.


I thinks its obvious the Suns were the superior team and definately would have won game 5.
The superior team wouldn't hang their hat on a 1 game suspension because I mean after all it was a best out of 7 games series, not 1.


Spurs would have been KILLED in a game seven in Phoenix. Not to mention who knows how the Suns or Spurs would have responded with the Suns leading 3-2 in a game six.
:lol Could of would have should have.


The league screwed both teams. Suns never got a fair shot,
:dramaquee Yeah, it was so unfair how the league let David Blaine use his magic and let Manu have magnets in his hands.

[IGNORANT MAVS FAN]

I like it in my ass.
:lol

[milkyway21]

Duncan ave against the Suns in the 2007 playoffs
27 PPG
14 rbds
almost had a triple-double in the game 6 with 24 pts., 13 rbds and 9 blocks.

you guys think Hill is the answer next season? They can finally win against us?

IMO, KG would be the better option. I'm still not scared of Phoenix.

[Fast Dunk]

Nice bitchslapping by the Suns fan...

[yourcheatinheart]

And that's why you deserve to lose.

You think it was fair that the Spurs missed the chance to repeat in 2000 because Duncan was injured? You think Spurs fans liked the 0.4 nonsense in '04? You think the freak Ginobili foul on Dirk went down well in '06? The breaks fall however they fall, but if you're good enough to win anyway, you win. If you're not, you don't.

If the Suns had built a better lead earlier or someone else had stepped up, they could have won game 1, despite the freak Nash injury. They could have taken the series lead by winning game 3. If the Suns had better player discipline, they would never have had their guys suspended for game 5. If they were resilient enough, they could have won game 6 and sent the series back to Phoenix for a deciding game. There were a lot of opportunities.

The Suns did none of those things. They weren't good enough. Accept it like a man, move on, and wait for next year. Maybe your team will do better then. But whining and assigning bogus "asterisks" is for people who will always be losers, even if they win.


like the kind of self control and discipline Tim Duncan has walking 5 feet onto the court when James Jones and Francisco Elson get tangled up under the basket?? it is also my opinoin about the *'s, you cant think whatever the fuck you want. that's why it's a discussion board.

1999*
2003
2005
2007*

[Fast Dunk]

This is what Gilbert Arenas wrote on his blog about the Finals:

Finals Thoughts
I caught the game on Tuesday because I had the Cavs winning Game 3. Like most people are saying, I think the series has been pretty boring. You have two grind-it-out teams. But it’s good. I get to see Larry Hughes play in the championship, LeBron play in the championship, you get to see if “The Mouth,” Damon Jones, can get some time. You also get to see Tony Parker, who I’m good friends with, most likely win his third championship and maybe even the MVP.

[Fast Dunk_]

i said my piece and i'm cool with that :toast
Some pretty weak takes, but you're a sun fan I wouldn't expect anything better.

[Fast Dunk_]

This is what Gilbert Arenas wrote on his blog about the Finals:

Finals Thoughts
I caught the game on Tuesday because I had the Cavs winning Game 3. Like most people are saying, I think the series has been pretty boring. You have two grind-it-out teams. But it’s good. I get to see Larry Hughes play in the championship, LeBron play in the championship, you get to see if “The Mouth,” Damon Jones, can get some time. You also get to see Tony Parker, who I’m good friends with, most likely win his third championship and maybe even the MVP.
I masturbate to articles like this all the time.

[yourcheatinheart]

Let's leave that game 5 aside. Still, for the Suns to take the series they would have had to beat the Spurs 2 out of 2 times (games 5 and 7). Considering the Suns at full strength only managed to beat the Spurs 2 out of 5 times, one could estimate the odds of one such event happening at 40%. For that to happen twice, the odds would drop to 16%. And though I admit one cannot make such oversimplification of an inherently complex matter, I think that's much closer to reality than that one that assumes because a short handed Suns team put up a fight, a full strength team would have beaten the Spurs. You never know. Maybe they wouldn't have been motivated enough, maybe the starters would have played worse than the backups. Hell, I think it's pretty clear Marion's performances were all significantly less impressive when Stoudemire was on the court, and Kurt Thomas wouldn't have had the chance to contribute as much. And that doesn't even take into account the additional game they would have had to win. So maybe things could have gone different, more than likely not. But where does the certainty the Suns would have moved on come from, I'm not quite sure.


No one will ever know

[Fast Dunk]

Hint: POST COUNT

[yourcheatinheart]

Some pretty weak takes, but you're a sun fan I wouldn't expect anything better.


hey feel free to drop in and contribute anytime jackass

[Fast Dunk_]

hey feel free to drop in and contribute anytime jackass
Why when your pretty much saying the same old shit thats been said by many a sun fan who have a hard time of letting go. Bring something good and then get back to me.

[yourcheatinheart]

Why when your pretty much saying the same old shit thats been said by many a sun fan who have a hard time of letting go. Bring something good and then get back to me.


cause what's worse than losing 4-2?? getting your ass bounced in 4 games. Jesus Christ did the Cavs even put up a fight, those heartless bastards??

[Fast Dunk]

actually win a game in the finals and get back to me

Don't pay attention to this guy he is a loser spurs fan trying to be a clone.

[Fast Dunk_]

actually win a game in the finals and get back to me
Bitch get to the finals and then get to me.

[Fast Dunk]

Bitch get to the finals and then get to me.

Actually they have reached the finals asswipe!

[Fast Dunk_]

Fuck I'm so stupid. I obviously dont know shit about basketball.

[yourcheatinheart]

cleveland's heart was about as big as the lime sitting in my corona

[Fast Dunk_]

cleveland's heart was about as big as the lime sitting in my corona
:lol nice.

[Johnny RIngo]

you make me laugh. the mavs??? you can't even spell let alone make a clear concious basketball rhetoric. your fucking high if you don't think the Suns are contenders.

LOL at the S0ns being contenders. That term is usually reserved for teams that can actually win conference titles(Spurs and Mavs). The S0ns are a second tier Western Conference team in the same vein as the Nuggets. The S0ns look good beating up on lower seeded teams like the Lakers. When they face real opposition they crumble and fall apart. Like I said, S0ns are not a contender. In the last decade the only team's to have made the Finals from the WCF are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Spurs, and last year's Mavs. The Lakers fell apart years ago. That leaves only two contenders: Spurs and Mavs.


we had you on the ropes

I guess the '05 Sonics had us on the ropes too? Hell, even last year's Kings gave us a better fight than the '07 S0ns. Steve Trash's S0ns have never been much of a challenge for the Spurs. Last year's Mavs is what I'd call tough. The S0ns, on the other hand, are about as tough as toilet paper.


and your number 1 fan in the leauge front office saved your ass. don't feed the masses bullshit and call it chocolate soufle.

Suns Suspensions Bring '97 Knicks to Mind

The Phoenix Suns have only themselves to blame after Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended last night for leaving the bench during the final seconds of the Suns' Game 4 win over San Antonio.

KRTTen years ago, the Knicks had their season ruined when Patrick Ewing was suspended one game in a second round playoff series against Miami for leaving the bench. Larry Johnson, Allan Houston and John Starks raced off the bench to break up the fight between Charlie Ward and P.J. Brown, while Ewing wandered just a few feet from the bench before being told by Buck Williams to get off the court.

The rule was established to prevent players from escalating an altercation. Rather than three referees having to possibly worry about 30 players on the court at one time, the officials and the respective coaches have a chance to control 10 players.

During his weekly appearance on NBA TV Tuesday night, Ewing said he was "pissed" when the league ruled him ineligible for Game 6 against Miami, along with Ward and Houston, while Johnson and Starks served their suspensions in Game 7.

I still believe had Starks and Ewing had the chance to play together in either Game 6 or 7, the Knicks would have defeated an inferior Miami Heat team. Starks, you may remember, was the league's Sixth Man of the Year in 1996-97.

The Ewing suspension cost the Knicks a chance to face Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals. It would have been an epic series since both teams were clearly the best in the East. (I think the Knicks would have won in six games.)

Does the rule need to be altered? It seems only logical that as long as the player in question never comes close to being involved in the fracas a suspension is not necessary. Ewing, Stoudemire and Diaw all moved toward the scrum but all three quickly retreated and avoided contact with the players currently on the floor.

The Knicks and Ewing were burned by the letter of the law. The Suns had 10 years to get it right and one moment in a great playoff series may have cost them their best chance at an NBA title. Ewing and the Knicks know the feeling.



NBA'S BRAWL RULE GOT IT RIGHT

May 18, 2007 -- SO every now and then a calamitous, scandalous, bench-clearing riot breaks out in an NBA game, the kind that spills into the stands and inspires ESPN and Fox Sports Net to break out and add to their Best of Violence reels.

And the media line up to condemn the NBA for its lack of foresight and crime prevention. We scream for a week, at least.

And then the NBA institutes firmer, zero-tolerance rules, the kind designed to diminish the likelihood of such shameful episodes and to save the NBA from itself.

And then a hassle on a big stage breaks out - Monday's, for example. And then the NBA applies its no-exceptions rules.

And then, wouldn't ya know it, we do a flip-flop. We in the media condemn and ridicule the NBA for over-reacting, for excessive harshness, for depriving fans of the best players at an important time of year, for failing to factor in the human condition.

On ESPN, throughout the week, people who ostensibly follow the NBA - Stephen A. Smith and Jackie MacMullan, to name two - slammed the NBA's decision to suspend Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw one game each for leaving the Suns' bench to rush to the aid of Steve Nash. A travesty of justice!

They declared the NBA's application of its rules as ignorant to the dictates of "human nature" and as too severe, especially in Stoudamire's case, because he's a key player.

Well, for starters, if rushing from the bench to Nash's aid was instinctive, no matter how fast one arrived, he'd have gotten there in time to break up something that had already ended. Nash was lying on the deck, and the guy who put him there - Robert Horry - was done doing what he did. And Horry would have been left the only one penalized.

So there was nothing more that players rushing from the bench could have done than make matters worse. There never is.

And that's precisely what the NBA's rule against leaving the bench was designed to do - prevent bad scenes from growing worse. And Monday, it worked.

But instead of "Hooray for the NBA!," we turn on our all-sports network to hear the league bashed for its failure to recognize, of all things, human nature.

If rushing from the bench simply was a by-product of human nature, then how do we explain the inaction of the rest of the Suns' bench? And why didn't the Spurs' bench deploy?

[Shred]

LOL at the S0ns being contenders. That term is usually reserved for teams that can actually win conference titles(Spurs and Mavs). The S0ns are a second tier Western Conference team in the same vein as the Nuggets. The S0ns look good beating up on lower seeded teams like the Lakers. When they face real opposition they crumble and fall apart. Like I said, S0ns are not a contender. In the last decade the only team's to have made the Finals from the WCF are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Spurs, and last year's Mavs. The Lakers fell apart years ago. That leaves only two contenders: Spurs and Mavs.



I guess the '05 Sonics had us on the ropes too? Hell, even last year's Kings gave us a better fight than the '07 S0ns. Steve Trash's S0ns have never been much of a challenge for the Spurs. Last year's Mavs is what I'd call tough. The S0ns, on the other hand, are about as tough as toilet paper.[/I]

Obsession noted.

*

[Russ]

Obsession noted.

*
If you think Spurs fans are obsessed by Phoenix, you should see how we wring our hands over teams that actually beat the Spurs.

We are worrywarts. We worry about the Suns like we worry about global warming, it's a potential threat, surely to be taken seriously, a great topic for conversation, but we will all probably be gone by the time any damage is done.

Speaking of hot, the Spurs are 8-3 in the playoffs against the Suns in the Nash era (5-1 in the Valley of the Sun).

It's the off-season, we have to talk about something after all.

[Johnny RIngo]

Obsession noted.

*

I'm more concerned about the Jazz and Nuggets than the S0ns. At least those teams know how to play defense.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I'm more concerned about the Jazz and Nuggets than the S0ns. At least those teams know how to play defense.

Ah yes, those defensive stalwarts that are the Denver Nuggets... the same team that is worse defensively than Phoenix. Care to pull anything else out of your ass?

[da_suns_fan__]

No doubt it is Elliot fan impersonating Fast Dunk.

[timvp]

Alison Cox, 25, a basketball fanatic from the US state of Arizona on holiday in France, said she thought it was "pretty rude" of the couple to neglect all the people who had come to wish them well.

"I don't expect them to invite us into the church but why couldn't we at least see them walking into the building?" she asked.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/new-heartache-for-longoriaparker-fans-at-paris-wedding/20070608-mj8.html


Suns fans still hatin' :rollin

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I'm not ElliottFan.
:tu

[yourcheatinheart]

LOL at the S0ns being contenders. That term is usually reserved for teams that can actually win conference titles(Spurs and Mavs). The S0ns are a second tier Western Conference team in the same vein as the Nuggets. The S0ns look good beating up on lower seeded teams like the Lakers. When they face real opposition they crumble and fall apart. Like I said, S0ns are not a contender. In the last decade the only team's to have made the Finals from the WCF are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Spurs, and last year's Mavs. The Lakers fell apart years ago. That leaves only two contenders: Spurs and Mavs.



I guess the '05 Sonics had us on the ropes too? Hell, even last year's Kings gave us a better fight than the '07 S0ns. Steve Trash's S0ns have never been much of a challenge for the Spurs. Last year's Mavs is what I'd call tough. The S0ns, on the other hand, are about as tough as toilet paper.



Suns Suspensions Bring '97 Knicks to Mind

The Phoenix Suns have only themselves to blame after Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended last night for leaving the bench during the final seconds of the Suns' Game 4 win over San Antonio.

KRTTen years ago, the Knicks had their season ruined when Patrick Ewing was suspended one game in a second round playoff series against Miami for leaving the bench. Larry Johnson, Allan Houston and John Starks raced off the bench to break up the fight between Charlie Ward and P.J. Brown, while Ewing wandered just a few feet from the bench before being told by Buck Williams to get off the court.

The rule was established to prevent players from escalating an altercation. Rather than three referees having to possibly worry about 30 players on the court at one time, the officials and the respective coaches have a chance to control 10 players.

During his weekly appearance on NBA TV Tuesday night, Ewing said he was "pissed" when the league ruled him ineligible for Game 6 against Miami, along with Ward and Houston, while Johnson and Starks served their suspensions in Game 7.

I still believe had Starks and Ewing had the chance to play together in either Game 6 or 7, the Knicks would have defeated an inferior Miami Heat team. Starks, you may remember, was the league's Sixth Man of the Year in 1996-97.

The Ewing suspension cost the Knicks a chance to face Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals. It would have been an epic series since both teams were clearly the best in the East. (I think the Knicks would have won in six games.)

Does the rule need to be altered? It seems only logical that as long as the player in question never comes close to being involved in the fracas a suspension is not necessary. Ewing, Stoudemire and Diaw all moved toward the scrum but all three quickly retreated and avoided contact with the players currently on the floor.

The Knicks and Ewing were burned by the letter of the law. The Suns had 10 years to get it right and one moment in a great playoff series may have cost them their best chance at an NBA title. Ewing and the Knicks know the feeling.



NBA'S BRAWL RULE GOT IT RIGHT

May 18, 2007 -- SO every now and then a calamitous, scandalous, bench-clearing riot breaks out in an NBA game, the kind that spills into the stands and inspires ESPN and Fox Sports Net to break out and add to their Best of Violence reels.

And the media line up to condemn the NBA for its lack of foresight and crime prevention. We scream for a week, at least.

And then the NBA institutes firmer, zero-tolerance rules, the kind designed to diminish the likelihood of such shameful episodes and to save the NBA from itself.

And then a hassle on a big stage breaks out - Monday's, for example. And then the NBA applies its no-exceptions rules.

And then, wouldn't ya know it, we do a flip-flop. We in the media condemn and ridicule the NBA for over-reacting, for excessive harshness, for depriving fans of the best players at an important time of year, for failing to factor in the human condition.

On ESPN, throughout the week, people who ostensibly follow the NBA - Stephen A. Smith and Jackie MacMullan, to name two - slammed the NBA's decision to suspend Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw one game each for leaving the Suns' bench to rush to the aid of Steve Nash. A travesty of justice!

They declared the NBA's application of its rules as ignorant to the dictates of "human nature" and as too severe, especially in Stoudamire's case, because he's a key player.

Well, for starters, if rushing from the bench to Nash's aid was instinctive, no matter how fast one arrived, he'd have gotten there in time to break up something that had already ended. Nash was lying on the deck, and the guy who put him there - Robert Horry - was done doing what he did. And Horry would have been left the only one penalized.

So there was nothing more that players rushing from the bench could have done than make matters worse. There never is.

And that's precisely what the NBA's rule against leaving the bench was designed to do - prevent bad scenes from growing worse. And Monday, it worked.

But instead of "Hooray for the NBA!," we turn on our all-sports network to hear the league bashed for its failure to recognize, of all things, human nature.

If rushing from the bench simply was a by-product of human nature, then how do we explain the inaction of the rest of the Suns' bench? And why didn't the Spurs' bench deploy?



a rule is rule this i agree, but the rule is a fucking joke. reason why? timmy duncan should've been suspended for walking 5 feet on to the court when James Jones and Francisco Elson got tangled under the basket in the same game 4, with 9:10 secs left in 2nd quarter. it's all there, black and white, clear as crystal . anyone who leaves the bench during said altercation will be subjected to suspension by the league. to me it wasn't how far TD got on the court (which was about a foot inside the 3 point line), but the amount of time he stayed on the floor before bowen pull him back. Rules are meant to be broken when their application fails to execute their purpose. That's why we have judges. This play was exhibit A.

[Johnny RIngo]

Ah yes, those defensive stalwarts that are the Denver Nuggets... the same team that is worse defensively than Phoenix. Care to pull anything else out of your ass?

Actually, the Nuggets defensive EFG% is around the same level as the S0ns. TD's toughest matchup this post-season was against the Nuggets. Nene+Camby+Kmart=tough frontcourt. Melo and Iverson are a lightning quick backcourt. If they had someone like Finley or Barry coming off the bench they could be very dangerous. If Denver can land a perimeter shooter this summer I see them as the second biggest threat to the Spurs after the Mavs.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Actually, the Nuggets defensive EFG% is around the same level as the S0ns. TD's toughest matchup this post-season was against the Nuggets. Nene+Camby+Kmart=tough frontcourt. Melo and Iverson are a lightning quick backcourt. If they had someone like Finley or Barry coming off the bench they could be very dangerous. If Denver can land a perimeter shooter this summer I see them as the second biggest threat to the Spurs after the Mavs.

Phoenix is a better defensive team though, while the difference is slight, it is true. Plus, we're a better offensive team. So I'm not really sure how they're a better team.

[Johnny RIngo]

a rule is rule this i agree, but the rule is a fucking joke. reason why? timmy duncan should've been suspended for walking 5 feet on to the court when James Jones and Francisco Elson got tangled under the basket in the same game 4, with 9:10 secs left in 2nd quarter. it's all there, black and white, clear as crystal . anyone who leaves the bench during said altercation will be subjected to suspension by the league. to me it wasn't how far TD got on the court (which was about a foot inside the 3 point line), but the amount of time he stayed on the floor before bowen pull him back. Rules are meant to be broken when their application fails to execute their purpose. That's why we have judges. This play was exhibit A.

How is Elson dunking on James Jones an altercation?

[Johnny RIngo]

Phoenix is a better defensive team though, while the difference is slight, it is true. Plus, we're a better offensive team. So I'm not really sure how they're a better team.

That Nuggets team only played together for a few weeks. Give 'em a whole year to play together and they could be competitive.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

The Rule is stupid because it punishes people for shit that doesn't happen.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

That Nuggets team only played together for a few weeks. Give 'em a whole year to play together and they could be competitive.

That is true, although they'll probably lose Blake and they're actively shopping Camby, so that could be a big problem.

[Johnny RIngo]

That is true, although they'll probably lose Blake and they're actively shopping Camby, so that could be a big problem.

IMO Nene's more important than Camby. Camby gambles on defense and has an inconsistent offensive game. Nene impressed me though. Very solid on both ends of the floor.

[yourcheatinheart]

How is Elson dunking on James Jones an altercation?


elson didn't dunk on shit. he swung on the rim like he was on a god damn monkey bar, caught james jones from the back and then 'sisqo fell like a bitch, and look who's in my top left frame on the fucking court for like 5 fucking seconds is tim fucking duncan. here you go, do the research :reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39nRO5keRM

[bob bass sucks]

stop crying dude :ihit

[yourcheatinheart]

stop crying dude :ihit


still no one in black and silver could ever answer that question, fucking hypocrites. :hungry:

[mavs>spurs2]

I thought the rule only applied to an altercation? There wasn't an altercation, Elson fell and looked at the ref expecting a call but no words were said or anything closely resembling an altercation.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:tu

[yourcheatinheart]

I thought the rule only applied to an altercation? There wasn't an altercation, Elson fell and looked at the ref expecting a call but no words were said or anything closely resembling an altercation.


the altercation was them getting tangled up under the basket. that's why duncan was on the floor, he had no god damn business being on the court regardless.

[yourcheatinheart]

the altercation was them getting tangled up under the basket. that's why duncan was on the floor, he had no god damn business being on the court regardless.
:hungry:

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

elson didn't dunk on shit. he swung on the rim like he was on a god damn monkey bar, caught james jones from the back and then 'sisqo fell like a bitch, and look who's in my top left frame on the fucking court for like 5 fucking seconds is tim fucking duncan. here you go, do the research :reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39nRO5keRM
He said how was it an altercation.

[yourcheatinheart]

He said how was it an altercation.


by duncan walking on the floor.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

by duncan walking on the floor.
An altercation is pretty much the same meaning as a fight. So how was it an altercation?

[mavs>spurs2]

the altercation was them getting tangled up under the basket. that's why duncan was on the floor, he had no god damn business being on the court regardless.

Players get tangled up all the time. It can sometimes lead to an altercation, but in this case it didnt. No words were exchanged, no pushing, shoving, or punches thrown. Duncan may have had no business being on the court, but the suspension rule only applies to an altercation which there was none.

[yourcheatinheart]

An altercation is pretty much the same meaning as a fight. So how was it an altercation?


how was it anymore of an altercation than nash and horry?


let the contradiction begin....

[mavs>spurs2]

how was it anymore of an altercation than nash and horry?

Nash jumped up and got in Horry's face talking shit. There was also a little shoving going on between Bell and Horry.

[yourcheatinheart]

Nash jumped up and got in Horry's face talking shit.


what the fuck does that have to do with boris diaw and amare? they got farther than duncan did sure, but not by much. plus the said "altercation" was difused by the time they got anywhere near anything.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

how was it anymore of an altercation than nash and horry?


let the contradiction begin....
Horry hipchecked Nash and he got walloped out of bounds. From there Raja Bell and Steve Nash got in Horry's face and there was a little shoving and such. Amare and Boris at that moment left the bench area to join and no one know what they would've done. Then they were pulled back to the bench. It all simmered out then we went back to playing the game.

Elson attempted a dunk over James Jones. After the attempt, he fell over James Jones and they got tangled up. But note that there was no shit talking or shoving or anything altercation-wise that went on during that point. Duncan and Bowen both got off the bench to argue maybe about possible a foul on James Jones. But note that they were not a part of an altercation and there was no altercation occurring.

[yourcheatinheart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBeCQak588

if amare does this to tony parker near your bench, who ain't getting up? who's not getting furious?

[mavs>spurs2]

what the fuck does that have to do with boris diaw and amare?

Nothing, which is why they should have stayed out of it.

[yourcheatinheart]

Horry hipchecked Nash and he got walloped out of bounds. From there Raja Bell and Steve Nash got in Horry's face and there was a little shoving and such. Amare and Boris at that moment left the bench area to join and no one know what they would've done. Then they were pulled back to the bench. It all simmered out then we went back to playing the game.

Elson attempted a dunk over James Jones. After the attempt, he fell over James Jones and they got tangled up. But note that there was no shit talking or shoving or anything altercation-wise that went on during that point. Duncan and Bowen both got off the bench to argue maybe about possible a foul on James Jones. But note that they were not a part of an altercation and there was no altercation occurring.


hear the tape. marv albert even says elson is giving jones the business. and you saying duncan got on the court to dispute a foul sounds alot like boris and amare were checking on a teamate who just got fucked. the rule says do not get on the court for shit. duncan was on the court for reason unknown just like amare and boris.

[yourcheatinheart]

Nothing, which is why they should have stayed out of it.


they didn't get anywhere near this "altercation". that's what i'm trying to say.

[yourcheatinheart]

Nothing, which is why they should have stayed out of it.


like duncan had nothing to do with the situation with elson and jones. he should have kept his ass on the bench, glued like you and the league all suggest

[mavs>spurs2]

the rule says do not get on the court for shit.

No, the rule states that leaving the bench during an altercation equals an automatic suspension.

[yourcheatinheart]

No, the rule states that leaving the bench during an altercation equals an automatic suspension.


which tim duncan did.

[mavs>spurs2]

like duncan had nothing to do with the situation with elson and jones. he should have kept his ass on the bench, glued like you and the league all suggest

He should have, but the league wasn't forced to suspend him because it wasn't during an altercation. That's why the Duncan issue comes down to the leagues decision, it isn't a clearly stated rule that had to be enforced. The league decided that Duncan did nothing to escalate the situation.

I know that neither Duncan, Amare, or Diaw did anything wrong. But Amare and Diaw HAD to be suspended because it is a clearly stated RULE.

[mavs>spurs2]

which tim duncan did.

No, Tim Duncan left the bench. Not during an altercation. I'm not so sure you know the definition of ''altercation."

[yourcheatinheart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39nRO5keRM


here it is again

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

hear the tape. marv albert even says elson is giving jones the business.
Okay so now we're going by what Marv Albert says. :rolleyes



and you saying duncan got on the court to dispute a foul sounds alot like boris and amare were checking on a teamate who just got fucked.
Yea but Elson didn't get in Jones's face after the possible foul like how Nash did with Horry.


the rule says do not get on the court for shit. duncan was on the court for reason unknown just like amare and boris.
The rule is don't leave the court during an altercation or a 1-game suspension.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

they didn't get anywhere near this "altercation". that's what i'm trying to say.
But they did leave the bench area, which is all the information you need to handle the suspensions.

[yourcheatinheart]

Okay so now we're going by what Marv Albert says. :rolleyes
why not he was there, and he has no bias towards either team so i would call his comments fair to situation


Yea but Elson didn't get in Jones's face after the possible foul like how Nash did with Horry.

no because jones didn't give him the satisfaction by running down the court

The rule is don't leave the court during an altercation or a 1-game suspension.

that's the rule and timmy got off

[yourcheatinheart]

But they did leave the bench area, which is all the information you need to handle the suspensions.


so did duncan

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

which tim duncan did.
He left the bench but not during an altercation.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

so did duncan
Not during an altercation, though.

[mavs>spurs2]

He should have, but the league wasn't forced to suspend him because it wasn't during an altercation. That's why the Duncan issue comes down to the leagues decision, it isn't a clearly stated rule that had to be enforced. The league decided that Duncan did nothing to escalate the situation.

I know that neither Duncan, Amare, or Diaw did anything wrong. But Amare and Diaw HAD to be suspended because it is a clearly stated RULE.

Does this help you understand better?

I'd be pissed if this happened to my team too. It may have changed the outcome of the series. But there's nothing you can do, the rule is clearly stated in black and white. Dumb mental mistakes can sometimes cost you.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

why not he was there, and he has no bias towards either team so i would call his comments fair to situation. no because jones didn't give him the satisfaction by running down the court
Then you can thank Jones for not starting an altercation and not getting Tim Duncan suspended.


that's the rule and timmy got off
The rule is during an altercation. There was no altercation so it wasn't mandatory that Duncan be suspended.

[yourcheatinheart]

Then you can thank Jones for not starting an altercation and not getting Tim Duncan suspended.


The rule is during an altercation. There was no altercation so it wasn't mandatory that Duncan be suspended.


the altercation was jones and sisqo got tangled up under the basket. THAT WAS WHY TIM DUNCAN WAS ON THE FLOOR, THAT'S WHY BRUCE HAD TO GET HIM, AND THAT'S WHY THAT PIECE OF SHIT DESERVED TO GET SUSPENDED

[mavs>spurs2]

the altercation was jones and sisqo got tangled up under the basket. THAT WAS WHY TIM DUNCAN WAS ON THE FLOOR, THAT'S WHY BRUCE HAD TO GET HIM, AND THAT'S WHY THAT PIECE OF SHIT DESERVED TO GET SUSPENDED

Players get tangled up all the time. Tangled up does not equal altercation. Elson didn't get up and make any move for Jones, no punches were thrown, no pushing or shoving. You keep bringing that up as your main defense but it just isn't plausible. You need to look up the definition of "altercation."

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

the altercation was jones and sisqo got tangled up under the basket. THAT WAS WHY TIM DUNCAN WAS ON THE FLOOR, THAT'S WHY BRUCE HAD TO GET HIM, AND THAT'S WHY THAT PIECE OF SHIT DESERVED TO GET SUSPENDED
Getting tangled up with someone is not an altercation. An altercation is somewhat a fight. There was nothing fight-related happening. So no suspension.

[mardigan]

Getting tangled up with someone is not an altercation. An altercation is somewhat a fight. There was nothing fight-related happening. So no suspension.
I cant believe your still arguing with this idiot

[yourcheatinheart]

Getting tangled up with someone is not an altercation. An altercation is somewhat a fight. There was nothing fight-related happening. So no suspension.


and a fight is not getting hipchecked either

[yourcheatinheart]

I cant believe your still arguing with this idiot


fuck you, you glorify the hit on your page like a god damn hyena

[yourcheatinheart]

there was no fight when nash got hipchecked. don't you get that...

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

and a fight is not getting hipchecked either
But Nash getting up and trying to start one along with Raja Bell is.

[mardigan]

fuck you, you glorify the hit on your page like a god damn hyena
Flopping must be exposed

[mavs>spurs2]

there was no fight when nash got hipchecked. don't you get that...

Fighting isn't the only type of altercation. Anything that resembles a fight or could lead to a fight is also an altercation. Jumping up and charging at a player, getting in his face, and talking shit are all examples of an altercation. Also Bell and Horry got into a shoving match. These things aren't allowed in NBA games by rule, it's not the NHL.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I cant believe your still arguing with this idiot
:lol Me neither.

[yourcheatinheart]

Flopping must be exposed


manu=the innovation and craft of flopping

[yourcheatinheart]

:lol Me neither.

go flop in traffic

[mavs>spurs2]

go flop in traffic

:lmao If you're going to troll, you should at least resort to funny shit like this more often instead of arguing over things that can't be changed.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

What a fuckhead this new troll is.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I just got owned by a Spurs and a Mavs fan at the same time. So now I am resorting to talking about how they flop.

[yourcheatinheart]

i'm gay and i quote gay shit

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Getting tangled up with someone is not an altercation. An altercation is somewhat a fight. There was nothing fight-related happening. So no suspension.

al·ter·ca·tion /ˌɔltərˈkeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-ter-key-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME altercacioun < L altercātiōn- (s. of altercātiō). See altercate, -ion]

—Synonyms quarrel, disagreement, clash; squabble, tiff.

[mardigan]

Its to bad Nash had to flop and make it look worse than it was, maybe black Jesus would have stayed on the bench then

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Horry hipchecked Nash and he got walloped out of bounds. From there Raja Bell and Steve Nash got in Horry's face and there was a little shoving and such. Amare and Boris at that moment left the bench area to join and no one know what they would've done. Then they were pulled back to the bench. It all simmered out then we went back to playing the game.

Elson attempted a dunk over James Jones. After the attempt, he fell over James Jones and they got tangled up. But note that there was no shit talking or shoving or anything altercation-wise that went on during that point. Duncan and Bowen both got off the bench to argue maybe about possible a foul on James Jones. But note that they were not a part of an altercation and there was no altercation occurring.

Just curious, while I agree that the rule was applied correctly, do you believe that what Amare and Boris did was ethically deserving of a suspension.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Now I'm getting pwned by ElliottFan. I know! I'll call him gay!

[mavs>spurs2]

Just curious, while I agree that the rule was applied correctly, do you believe that what Amare and Boris did was ethically deserving of a suspension.

No, but it was a rule that had to be enforced. I think they should do away with it and from now on have the league make the decision accordingly.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Just curious, while I agree that the rule was applied correctly, do you believe that what Amare and Boris did was ethically deserving of a suspension.


No, but it was a rule that had to be enforced. I think they should do away with it and from now on have the league make the decision accordingly.

:tu

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

al·ter·ca·tion /ˌɔltərˈkeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-ter-key-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME altercacioun < L altercātiōn- (s. of altercātiō). See altercate, -ion]

—Synonyms quarrel, disagreement, clash; squabble, tiff.
:) Now if everyone can understand that...

[OldDirtMcGirt]

No, but it was a rule that had to be enforced. I think they should do away with it and from now on have the league make the decision accordingly.

I totally agree, but there's no way that you're going to see David Stern admit he's wrong. The league should've just done away with it in 1997, but instead they thought that they had to "act tough" and stick to their guns. Now there's no way they can save face and back out of the rule, even though you know this is going to come up again. Which sucks for basketball in general, because I'm pretty sure that all fans would rather see the game decided on the court rather than in the league offices.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

:) Now if everyone can understand that...

Copy and past has betrayed me again!

Anyways, the points is that an altercation is just a heated argument. Which is what I'd consider the Jones/Elson thing to be. Which is why this is a stupid fucking rule.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

:tu

[mavs>spurs2]

I totally agree, but there's no way that you're going to see David Stern admit he's wrong. The league should've just done away with it in 1997, but instead they thought that they had to "act tough" and stick to their guns. Now there's no way they can save face and back out of the rule, even though you know this is going to come up again. Which sucks for basketball in general, because I'm pretty sure that all fans would rather see the game decided on the court rather than in the league offices.

Stern needs to just grow a sack and admit when he's wrong and do what's best for the league.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

SpursTalk would be a lot more fun if there were more Suns fans like OldDirtMcGirt.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Stern needs to just grow a sack and admit when he's wrong and do what's best for the league.

Unfortunately his ego is too big to ever do that. Which is why we'll be forced to suffer through more ridiculous isolation plays and free thros while we shun any sort of team play.

[mavs>spurs2]

Unfortunately his ego is too big to ever do that. Which is why we'll be forced to suffer through more ridiculous isolation plays and free thros while we shun any sort of team play.

:tu See 2006 finals. DWhistle>the whole mavericks team.

As much as I hate the spurs, I respect them for that reason. They still play team ball, which is becoming more and more rare in today's NBA.

[yourcheatinheart]

my mom flopped on my dad, and that's how i was born

[yourcheatinheart]

team ball=phoenix suns

[mavs>spurs2]

^I can agree with that, Steve Nash is the ultimate team player.

[yourcheatinheart]

mavs fans siding with spurs fans=story by vince mcmahon

[yourcheatinheart]

Its to bad Nash had to flop and make it look worse than it was, maybe black Jesus would have stayed on the bench then


too bad robert horry had to resort to bitch tactics, maybe we would all be on here talking about what a great series it was

[michaelwcho]

Copy and past has betrayed me again!

Anyways, the points is that an altercation is just a heated argument. Which is what I'd consider the Jones/Elson thing to be. Which is why this is a stupid fucking rule.

Comparing Horry vs. Nash/Bell and Jones vs. Elson is like comparing a Phoenix summer with an Alaskan summer. Sorry, I have to call BS on that one.

(I live in Phoenix and visited Alaska last August)

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Comparing Horry vs. Nash/Bell and Jones vs. Elson is like comparing a Phoenix summer with an Alaskan summer. Sorry, I have to call BS on that one.

(I live in Phoenix and visited Alaska last August)

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.

[ClingingMars]

team ball=phoenix suns

*team offense

defense isn't in their vocabulary.

-Mars

[ClingingMars]

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.

There was NO altercation. It was merely an accident, bodies were tangled after a dunk.

-Mars

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

How come Amare got suspended for leaving the bench? I always leave the bench during my middle school games and I haven't gotten suspended yet.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

There was NO altercation. It was merely an accident, bodies were tangled after a dunk.

-Mars

You can see Elson head towards Junior. I would say that it would fall under either a "noisy argument" or a "heated dispute". Nothing big, and definitely not suspension worthy. My point is that when you make these shitty "hard and fast rules" people end up getting suspended for no practical reason (see: Diaw, Boris and Stoudemire, Amare), and it alienates fans.

[justanotherspursfan]

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.
While the league office doesn't have any leeway in deciding what do do if someone leaves the bench during an altercation, they do have leeway to decide what an altercation was, and according to the league office, Nash/Horry counted, and Elson/Jones didn't.

The former did seem a little more escalated than the latter, but frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what criteria the league uses to decide what counts as an altercation. That's another reason the current rules are on shaky ground.

Personally, I would have much rather squared off with the Suns with both teams at full strength for game 5, or with only Horry suspended, but the league office gets to make those calls, not me. Regardless, the league office did what they did. The 2007 playoffs are over, and I hope we get a nice clean rematch next year.

[ClingingMars]

You can see Elson head towards Junior.

I never saw that. is there a youtube of it?

-Mars

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I never saw that. is there a youtube of it?

-Mars

Yeah, I used the one that was posted earlier in the thread. He heads towards him and the ref holds him back.

[judaspriestess]

too bad robert horry had to resort to bitch tactics, maybe we would all be on here talking about what a great series it was

how did this thread go from phoenix landing hill to this tired old re-hashed story by bitter suns of bitches fans?

It was a great series, your team just showed how stupid and immature they are which cost them the series. phoenix should not have lost game one.
sheesh, ridiculous

[OldDirtMcGirt]

While the league office doesn't have any leeway in deciding what do do if someone leaves the bench during an altercation, they do have leeway to decide what an altercation was, and according to the league office, Nash/Horry counted, and Elson/Jones didn't.

The former did seem a little more escalated than the latter, but frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what criteria the league uses to decide what counts as an altercation. That's another reason the current rules are on shaky ground.

Personally, I would have much rather squared off with the Suns with both teams at full strength for game 5, or with only Horry suspended, but the league office gets to make those calls, not me. Regardless, the league office did what they did. The 2007 playoffs are over, and I hope we get a nice clean rematch next year.


:clap . Totally Agree, especially with the last paragraph. I just wish that the league would man up. Rules that "guarantee" anything are typically foolish and dangerous and almost always lead to punishing people who have done nothing wrong. Their only purpose is to allow the disciplinarians a way to hide behind the rule and say stuff like, "it's out of my control" so they don't have to defend themselves.

[ClingingMars]

Yeah, I used the one that was posted earlier in the thread. He heads towards him and the ref holds him back.

the thread is too big :(

-Mars

[Johnny RIngo]

how did this thread go from phoenix landing hill to this tired old re-hashed story by bitter suns of bitches fans?


S0ns fans have one track minds. Remember, Arizona was ranked the stupidest state in the nation. Most of them don't understand the concept of defense and assume a gimmick offense is going to win them a championship. Even worse are the S0ns fans that believe Phoenix would have had a cakewalk to the Finals without the suspensions. Two things they seem to neglect:

1. Spurs are 15-6 against Nash's S0ns. Phoenix can't compete against the Spurs.
2. Jazz owned the S0ns in the regular season. Deron Williams went off on the Spurs elite defense. Imagine how much he'd drop on the shoddy S0ns D. He's murder Nash every time.

[justanotherspursfan]

Rules that "guarantee" anything are typically foolish and dangerous and almost always lead to punishing people who have done nothing wrong. Their only purpose is to allow the disciplinarians a way to hide behind the rule and say stuff like, "it's out of my control" so they don't have to defend themselves.
I think the problem is that the league is scared shitless of things like the Pacers-Pistons brawl -- as far as they're concerned, it makes the league look like a bunch of gangstas and reduces the white audience for NBA basketball. Stern likes the "don't ever go on the court if there's an altercation" rule because he thinks it will help keep people on the bench in case of a real altercation.

Obviously, applying rules designed for that kind of situation to a minor conflict between two veteran playoff teams with little risk of starting a brawl looks absurd. But I think that's why the league has made no moves to change things. Since only the league can do anything about it, all a team can really do at this point is educate your players about it and try to make sure that if someone gets nailed again, it's not your guys.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I think the problem is that the league is scared shitless of things like the Pacers-Pistons brawl -- as far as they're concerned, it makes the league look like a bunch of gangstas and reduces the white audience for NBA basketball. Stern likes the "don't ever go on the court if there's an altercation" rule because he thinks it will help keep people on the bench in case of a real altercation.

Obviously, applying rules designed for that kind of situation to a minor conflict between two veteran playoff teams with little risk of starting a brawl looks absurd. But I think that's why the league has made no moves to change things. Since only the league can do anything about it, all a team can really do at this point is educate your players about it and try to make sure that if someone gets nailed again, it's not your guys.

I just think you can keep the rule's punch while still fairly applying it to all situations. Just word it to say, "Any player actively involved in escalating an altercation will be punished accordingly by the league." They can still suspend guys who actually contribute to the problem, and can apply and adapt the rule to different situations.

And don't get me started on Stern trying to "whiten" up professional basketball to appeal towards Middle America. It's a flawed and dangerous concept on so many levels. There are a bunch of reasons why the NBA is struggling, and the "hip hop culture" is pretty far down that list.

[Sweetey]

S0ns fans have one track minds. Remember, Arizona was ranked the stupidest state in the nation. Most of them don't understand the concept of defense and assume a gimmick offense is going to win them a championship. Even worse are the S0ns fans that believe Phoenix would have had a cakewalk to the Finals without the suspensions. Two things they seem to neglect:

1. Spurs are 15-6 against Nash's S0ns. Phoenix can't compete against the Spurs.
2. Jazz owned the S0ns in the regular season. Deron Williams went off on the Spurs elite defense. Imagine how much he'd drop on the shoddy S0ns D. He's murder Nash every time.
Best post of the month so far !! http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h258/jlo49/yahoo.gif

I am do damned sick and tired of the wimpy crying-ass Suns of bitches ! I feel sorry for Grant Hill having to play for such LOSERS !!!!!

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h258/jlo49/WeCantPlayDefense.jpg

[justanotherspursfan]

I just think you can keep the rule's punch while still fairly applying it to all situations. Just word it to say, "Any player actively involved in escalating an altercation will be punished accordingly by the league." They can still suspend guys who actually contribute to the problem, and can apply and adapt the rule to different situations.
Works fine for me, but I don't think the league has the slightest interest in changing the rules.


And don't get me started on Stern trying to "whiten" up professional basketball to appeal towards Middle America. It's a flawed and dangerous concept on so many levels. There are a bunch of reasons why the NBA is struggling, and the "hip hop culture" is pretty far down that list.
I agree that it's a bad idea. Even if the number one reason for the league struggling were that middle American white people feel alienated from the NBA, that still wouldn't mean that it would be a smart idea.

The best thing the league can do to regain popularity is what they're already doing -- improve the product on the court with more great team play on both offense and defense, and reduce the number of dull isos that slow the game to a crawl. From where I sit, NBA basketball is a drastically better product than it was 5 years ago, and they just need to find some hooks to get more people to sample it again.

[mardigan]

too bad robert horry had to resort to bitch tactics, maybe we would all be on here talking about what a great series it was
It was a great series for my team

[peewee's lovechild]

Hill snubbed the Spurs.

I hope he breaks his ankle during the pre-season and is out until the All-Star break.
Then, I hope he tears his ACL and MCL just before the playoffs start.

It can happen.
And, I will have my voodoo doll to make it happen.

[Deede4525]

He really owed it to Orlando to stay, for the absolute minimum, he's not a great player but for that price he could have helped an already improving team...

I agree! He OWED Orlando. They have stuck by him paying his salary while he recovered from injuries every year. He did owe them.... :madrun

Glad we didn't get him because he would have hurt himself on DAY ONE! :dizzy

Debra

[yourcheatinheart]

It was a great series for my team


bitches stick together i see

[peewee's lovechild]

bitches stick together i see

Blame Steve Nash for all that bullshit.

If he hadn't flopped, the bench would have never reacted the way they did.

Why is it the Spurs' fault that Nash decided to sell the flagrant by throwing himself to the scorers table?

Quit your bitching and pray that you can still make it to the playoffs next season . . . only to get your ass handed to you by San Antonio, AGAIN!!!

[mavs>spurs2]

lol troll fight

[Johnny RIngo]

Blame Steve Nash for all that bullshit.

If he hadn't flopped, the bench would have never reacted the way they did.

Why is it the Spurs' fault that Nash decided to sell the flagrant by throwing himself to the scorers table?

Quit your bitching and pray that you can still make it to the playoffs next season . . . only to get your ass handed to you by San Antonio, AGAIN!!!

Steve Nash and Raja Bell are the biggest floppers in the league. D'Antoni knows his players can't play real defense so he tells them to flop all over the place.

[peewee's lovechild]

Steve Nash and Raja Bell are the biggest floppers in the league. D'Antoni knows his players can't play real defense so he tells them to flop all over the place.

Johnny Ringo, you're my type of huckleberry.

You speak pure wisdom.

[yourcheatinheart]

Steve Nash and Raja Bell are the biggest floppers in the league. D'Antoni knows his players can't play real defense so he tells them to flop all over the place.


Spurs fans chastising the Suns on the topic of flopping is like Larry Flynt chastising Hugh Hefner for all the naked bitches in his magazines. Spurs flop more than shamu at sea world. Manu and Bruce are the WORST!!

[yourcheatinheart]

spurs flop more than a kevin costner movie

[peewee's lovechild]

Spurs fans chastising the Suns on the topic of flopping is like Larry Flynt chastising Hugh Hefner for all the naked bitches in his magazines. Spurs flop more than shamu at sea world. Manu and Bruce are the WORST!!

Yea, yea, yea . . . whatever.

I'll just go back to our four trophies and gaze upon the four banners that will be hanging on the rafters when the season opens again.

You can go back to watching highlights of KJ, the round-mound-of-rebound, and a coach that calls himself "Cotton".

You have no idea how much you and your team suck.

I can't wait 'till we kick your asses again next year . . . since we did a pretty good job of it this year.

[yourcheatinheart]

Yea, yea, yea . . . whatever.

I'll just go back to our four trophies and gaze upon the four banners that will be hanging on the rafters when the season opens again.

You can go back to watching highlights of KJ, the round-mound-of-rebound, and a coach that calls himself "Cotton".

You have no idea how much you and your team suck.

I can't wait 'till we kick your asses again next year . . . since we did a pretty good job of it this year.


only people with vaginas talk like that

[Shred]

Steve Nash and Raja Bell are the biggest floppers in the league. D'Antoni knows his players can't play real defense so he tells them to flop all over the place.

Still avoiding the subject of the n-word and "owning" black men, I see.

[peewee's lovechild]

only people with vaginas talk like that

I got your mother's vagina right here.

It's really not all that impressive.

Can't believe you came out of that . . . or did she shit you out?

[Kori Ellis]

Thread closed.

If you all just want to name call, go to the Troll forum and talk smack all you want.

Thanks.