Suns fans out of control

Quote:

---

who both went in to calm the situation

---

:lmao :lmao :lmao

The rule was clear and had to be enforced. But it's a bad rule, and having it on the books ruined this series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Um, that's an insider article, so all that shows up is the first two paragraphs calling it stupid. That's about as eloquent as you are.

Explain to me why the NBA should ignore the rules for your team, when it has rigidly stuck to the leaving the bench equals an automatic suspension for everyone else since the inception of the rule. Players are responsible for their actions.

For example, I think the Horry suspension is way too harsh. But if Horry didn't want to be suspended he shouldn't have committed a hard foul or he should have figured out a way to look a little more like he didn't mean to do it. Once he made the hit he lost control of his own fate. Therefore what I think doesn't matter because Horry broke the rules.

---

My bad, didn't realize it was insider.

And the NBA shouldn't just ignore the rule for "my team", I thought that this shit was ridiculous when it happened in 1997, and then the bench players actually contributed to the fracas. It leaves nothing open to interpretation and punishes the Phoenix players for a brawl that they had no business in starting, and a brawl that their actions did not escalate in the slightest.

So really they're being suspended arbitrarily as a result of a brawl that they had nothing to do with. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

what about intent when nash tripped up bowen? or perhaps when bell shoved oberto down? or when bell came down hard on horry? bell's been doing that kind of shit for years. one hard playoff foul and suddenly horry's the dirtiest player in the league. that's some funny shit. it goes to show you how insular suns fans are. then again, almost 4 decades without any rings would probably lead most fans down that path.

I don't agree with the rule, but them's the rules... and I'll take the advantage it gives us any day, especially after the one sided bullshit officiating in Game 4.


(to the tune of That's Amore):
"When your team goes bye bye and your fans don't know why, ask Amare! Ask Amare..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

They wanted the NBA to regulate intent when they wanted Bowen suspended for his vicious leg sweep on Amare's surgically repaired knee or Bowen's flying donkey kick of Nash's vaginal area. Why should this be any different?

---

At least they're selectively consistent in applying their blinders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Well when you just had the league bend you over and fuck you in the ass, you'd probably be a bit testy too.

---

Quote of the day. I feel terrible for Suns fans. Perhaps the league will take a look at this in the off-season and further some of the language already in this rule and take a long, hard look at circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

---

So really they're being suspended arbitrarily as a result of a brawl that they had nothing to do with.

---

No, they are really being suspended as a result of leaving the bench vicinity during an altercation.

The rest of your team was smart enough to avoid doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

My bad, didn't realize it was insider.

And the NBA shouldn't just ignore the rule for "my team", I thought that this shit was ridiculous when it happened in 1997, and then the bench players actually contributed to the fracas. It leaves nothing open to interpretation and punishes the Phoenix players for a brawl that they had no business in starting, and a brawl that their actions did not escalate in the slightest.

So really they're being suspended arbitrarily as a result of a brawl that they had nothing to do with. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

---

nah, they're suspended for not following a rule that's been around for over a decade. maybe if they were rooks you could understand, but sadly that's not the case. the rule's meant to prevent fights from escalating. for the most part it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNS ROCK

Earlier in the game both Duncan and Bowen ran onto the court during a hard foul call. Neither are suspened. Yet two of our players, who both went in to calm the situation, rather blow it up, are now suspended for a must win game.

How can you say that the leauge was right? That shows that the out come is unfair

---

A calm situation? Are really that bias or blind? It was even close to being the same.

The key word in the rule is "altercation". The duncan and Bowen "incident wasn't even close. The 2 players never even looked at each other afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No, they are really being suspended as a result of leaving the bench vicinity during an altercation.

The rest of your team was smart enough to avoid doing this.

---

Oh no! God help the NBA, they left the bench! They had shit to do with a fight that a Spurs player started, and took like five steps before coming back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by violentkitten

nah, they're suspended for not following a rule that's been around for over a decade. maybe if they were rooks you could understand, but sadly that's not the case. the rule's meant to prevent fights from escalating. for the most part it works.

---

Yall must be dense. The rule is stupid. They had shit all to do with the fight and their actions did absolutely nothing to escalate the fight. Hence there should be no punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Oh no! God help the NBA, they left the bench! They had shit to do with a fight that a Spurs player started, and took like five steps before coming back.

---

who really started the fight? bell got in horry's face after the hard foul.

I think the situation sucks for a number of reasons, but it alwayas amazes me how players break rules that they know ARE THERE and then bitch about getting punished for it. THEY KNEW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN!! Excercise some fucking self control for fuck sake!! Why the fuck aren't the Suns mad at Amare and Diaw for being that fucking stupid in the first place??

EDIT: I'll throw another "fuck" in there for good measure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Oh no! God help the NBA, they left the bench! They had shit to do with a fight that a Spurs player started, and took like five steps before coming back.

---

So you are implying that it would have been okay for them to escalate the incident because a player from the other team started it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Yall must be dense. The rule is stupid. They had shit all to do with the fight and their actions did absolutely nothing to escalate the fight. Hence there should be no punishment.

---

nah, we get it. a couple of players from your favorite team were too dense to follow what is a rather clear rule. now you think the rule is unfair because their stupidity has penalized your team in the next game.

For those of you who disagree with the rule, some questions:

1) Why
2) How would you amend it?
3) What do you see as the benefits and/ or risk that would come with the change?

Escalation happened after the foul. Horry hits Nash, Nash goes down, Nash pops back up, Bell rushes Horry (hence escalation), Nash rushes Horry, players on court converge...Amare and Diaw rush off the bench and break coaches box, Sun assistants gang tackle Amare and Diaw...players on court hug to show solidarity.

Suns players escalated the situation after the foul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Yall must be dense. The rule is stupid.

---

So it is a stupid rule, doesn't mean you can break it.
Do you go 70mph in a 60mph zone because it is stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

My bad, didn't realize it was insider.

And the NBA shouldn't just ignore the rule for "my team", I thought that this shit was ridiculous when it happened in 1997, and then the bench players actually contributed to the fracas. It leaves nothing open to interpretation and punishes the Phoenix players for a brawl that they had no business in starting, and a brawl that their actions did not escalate in the slightest.

So really they're being suspended arbitrarily as a result of a brawl that they had nothing to do with. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.

---

But you said yourself that the rule leaves nothing open to interpretation. The entire league knows that. All the players know that. Hell, even you seem to know that. They are therefore not being suspended arbitrarily. I'm not sure why you have a problem with the league enforcing the rules on your team exactly the same way they've been enforced against every other team for ten years. Saying that you disliked it all along doesn't give you immunity. You need to try to understand that NBA players are made aware of this rule all the time and Amare and Diaw broke that rule. I'd like to see them not be suspended too, but there's just no way that was going to be possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Yall must be dense. The rule is stupid. They had shit all to do with the fight and their actions did absolutely nothing to escalate the fight. Hence there should be no punishment.

---

The rule was broken. They broke the rule. The rule states a one game suspension if you break it. The fact that you disagree with a rule doesn't give you the right to break it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

But you said yourself that the rule leaves nothing open to interpretation. The entire league knows that. All the players know that. Hell, even you seem to know that. They are therefore not being suspended arbitrarily. I'm not sure why you have a problem with the league enforcing the rules on your team exactly the same way they've been enforced against every other team for ten years. Saying that you disliked it all along doesn't give you immunity. You need to try to understand that NBA players are made aware of this rule all the time and Amare and Diaw broke that rule. I'd like to see them not be suspended too, but there's just no way that was going to be possible.

---

if only the league would enforce fouls in like manner.

29 to 14? rofl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angel_luv

For those of you who disagree with the rule, some questions:

1) Why
2) How would you amend it?
3) What do you see as the benefits and/ or risk that would come with the change?

---

1) Because it's inflexible wording does not allow the NBA to view situations on a case by case fairness, and its meaning has been skewed so that players are punished unfairly.

2) Change the wording to "any player that escalates an altercation shall be dealt with as the league sees fit".

3) This way the league can view each situation as an individual situation and not have their hand forced by set-in-stone rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angel_luv

For those of you who disagree with the rule, some questions:

1) Why
2) How would you amend it?
3) What do you see as the benefits and/ or risk that would come with the change?

---

The Suns fans weren't disagreeing with the rule when they were trying to get Duncan and Bowen suspended, they are just disagreeing with it when their players get tagged for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The rule was broken. They broke the rule. The rule states a one game suspension if you break it. The fact that you disagree with a rule doesn't give you the right to break it.

---

The rule is stupid. The league should have sacked up, admitted they were wrong, and admit that suspensions to Diaw/Stoudemire would not fit in with the original intent of the rule.