Spurs are now "the bad guys"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by violentkitten

i guess mav fan needs to find a silver lining in another ringless season while the spurs pick up another trophy.

---

From Dallas Mav fan can get a smell of the trophy. From Phoenix they can't.

It must be a spur. Cheap shots, mugging, attacking from behind. Not a generic response. Just indicative of a spur move. I doubt my mom is safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I don't know - to me (in re-watching it) it just looks like Horry gets pissed off that he just got pushed down by Bell, so he loses it and takes it out on Nash :shrug

---

Fans don't want to admit the truth to themselves-- that Horry got pissed and responded terribly. It would ruin their image of him so they would rather hold onto the notion that it was a calculated move. Otherwise- he acted like a thug and they don't want to believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

It must be a spur. Cheap shots, mugging, attacking from behind. Not a generic response. Just indicative of a spur move. I doubt my mom is safe.

---

unless there's a tornado headed for her trailer, I'm sure she's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

I doubt my mom is safe.

---

:wtf

Can we make this clear?

It was Stoudamire and Diaw that put the NBA into the position of suspending them. Horry's suspension is warranted and if not for the mistakes of the Suns players should be the only one suspended.

Do not place the blame on the Spurs for the mistake that the Suns have made.

Ridiculous.

I agree. And can we please leave out all that sportmanship, integrity and ethics.

We dumped that 2 nights ago.

Wow- looks like you guys think the Spurs already have the trophy in the case.

We thought the Mavs 67 wins meant something, too. We were obviously wrong.

Lotta' stuff can happen in the playoffs. Don't count your chickens, blah, blah, blah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Blackistone

BTW - the League giving Horry a 2 game suspension when a 1 game was barely warranted (Bell charged him after all) is their way of setting up a game 7 showdown. The Spurs take 5, and the Suns take 6 without the only other mobile big man the Spurs have being able to play. So relax Suns fans - the league is still taking care of you.

---

The league taking care of the Suns would have been to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for their 2007-08 opener...not in the playoffs where the Spurs benefit greatly as a result.

Horry would have still been suspended for game 5, but Diaw and Stoudemire would have still been available. Fair trade off if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G-Nob

Has everyone forgotten the fact that two suns players broke the rules?!? Why is there now a rallying cry for the Suns by the national media because of it? Kenny Smith said had this been Jalen Rose and Paitkowski, nobody would be griping about this.

Also, the Spurs are getting favorable treatment from the league now? I promise you, had this been duncan and bowen instead, the only people bitchin about this would be spurs fans.

---

Let me ask you this. In the play where Elson went to the ground and Duncan stepped into the court, what happens if Elson or someone in the starting lineup from the spurs charges James Jones?? Duncan was inside the court before the altercation and reacting to the foul not to the fight. Does this warrant a suspension?? This is where I believe the rule has it's deficits. The difference between Duncan stepping in the court and Amare stepping in the court is that an "altercation" began after Amare stepped in. For the record, I don't think Duncan deserved a suspension.

Nice alternative, NBA junkie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nashty

The difference between Duncan stepping in the court and Amare stepping in the court is that an "altercation" began after Amare stepped in. For the record, I don't think Duncan deserved a suspension.

---

Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nashty

Let me ask you this. In the play where Elson went to the ground and Duncan stepped into the court, what happens if Elson or someone in the starting lineup from the spurs charges James Jones?? Duncan was inside the court before the altercation and reacting to the foul not to the fight. Does this warrant a suspension?? This is where I believe the rule has it's deficits. The difference between Duncan stepping in the court and Amare stepping in the court is that an "altercation" began after Amare stepped in. For the record, I don't think Duncan deserved a suspension.

---

This morning Stu Jackson stated that you have to leave the vicinity of the bench to be in violation of the rule. Duncan took two steps on the court but was still very close to his bench where as Stoudemire was charging the altercation far away from his bench with assistant coaches draped on him. That's the difference in the two, I don't think Duncan would have been suspended even if there was an incident because he was very close to the bench and would probably have been ruled in the vicinity.

they're are obviously not bad people, but in terms of BBALL i'd rather them be called "bad guys" instead of soft. in my view, the aggressor usually wins.

Lets beat them by 40, and play our starters even in garbage time.

Oh yea, F Raja Bell...he is trying to be like Bowen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NBA Junkie

The league taking care of the Suns would have been to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for their 2007-08 opener...not in the playoffs where the Spurs benefit greatly as a result.

---

The rules says the suspension will be for the next game. If you are going to enforce the rule, then enforce it. If you are only going to partially enforce the rule, then why bother? Just say that the players were still in the vicinity of the bench and let them play.

Yeah, stay as far away from fairness as possible. WE ARE THE SPURS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Blackistone

This morning Stu Jackson stated that you have to leave the vicinity of the bench to be in violation of the rule. Duncan took two steps on the court but was still very close to his bench where as Stoudemire was charging the altercation far away from his bench with assistant coaches draped on him. That's the difference in the two, I don't think Duncan would have been suspended even if there was an incident because he was very close to the bench and would probably have been ruled in the vicinity.

---

I remember players being suspended for just having one foot inside the court during an altercation. I agree that both Amare and Diaw were very far from their seat on the bench.....but 20 ft from the bench?? How do we know what the "vecinity of the bench" means??

I really believe this rule need a lot more than just what it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

The rules says the suspension will be for the next game. If you are going to enforce the rule, then enforce it. If you are only going to partially enforce the rule, then why bother? Just say that the players were still in the vicinity of the bench and let them play.

---

If you want to go strictly by the rules, why aren't Duncan and Bowen suspended after they left the bench earlier in the game during the Elson incident?

I'm a Spurs fan, but I don't want to see a possible title marred with controversy.

Watch your back Junkie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NBA Junkie

If you want to go strictly by the rules, why aren't Duncan and Bowen suspended after they left the bench earlier in the game during the Elson incident?

---

No altercation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No altercation.

---

But...but...but....it's not fair...... :dramaquee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No altercation.

---

Also they were in the vicinity of the bench.

I believe this will be ("you shouldnt need") extra motivation for the spurs to dismantle every team in their way. The spurs are def. mad at this happenings and criticism(tainted) so you must believe they are ready to make a CHAMPIONS statement. Expect desperate spurs mode. :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun :madrun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Blackistone

Also they were in the vicinity of the bench.

---

define "vicintity of the bench"??

what exactly is the "bench area"??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nashty

I remember players being suspended for just having one foot inside the court during an altercation. I agree that both Amare and Diaw were very far from their seat on the bench.....but 20 ft from the bench?? How do we know what the "vecinity of the bench" means??

I really believe this rule need a lot more than just what it is now.

---

They amended the rule after the fiasco in which Ewing was suspended for toeing the sideline. It has for several years now stated that a player must remain in the vicinity of the bench. I, like you, have a big problem with the term "vicinity" of the bench because it doesn't state anything clearly. It leaves it up to Stern's discretion as to what that means, and that opens the door for corruption if Stern decides he doesn't like a player. I am convinced that if Ron Artest went out half way as far as Stoudemire he might have been suspended just because he's Ron Artest, and that would be an injustice.

In this case I think they might have used the coaches box as the limit to the vicinity of the bench. Jackson never said that so I don't know for sure, but that would be my best guess as to a definite lateral boundary for the "vicinity" of the bench. My question is, what is the boundary if you are walking away from the bench perpendicular to the sideline instead of parallel?