True Hoop -- Finally a reasonable Objective Opinion.

Guess They Really Mean "Stay on the Bench"

May 15, 2007 10:04 PM


Robert Horry, Amare Stoudemire, and Boris Diaw are all suspended for Game 5. It's a total downer for basketball fans everywhere, and it truly seems to reward the Spurs for a ridiculous foul.

But it's not hard to understand, when you consider how we got here.

The league has had grave PR trouble at various times in the past (mostly because there's some racist seeming notion on the part of ticket-buying fans that when basketball players do things that other athletes also do, like fight, or party, they're in dire need of taming). When that trouble gets serious enough, it really hurts the bottom line, and nowhere does it say that leagues like the NBA will never have real financial trouble. With some bad decisions, it can happen. Ask the NHL.

One of the bigger NBA PR problems of recent years was fighting (oddly, a feature in hockey, but whatever) which used to happen quite often. So the league took some serious -- even draconian -- steps to prevent it. One of those anti-mayhem rules was that no NBA player should ever leave the bench during an altercation, and if they do, they are instantly suspended, with, essentially, no questions asked.

There were some growing pains as everyone got used to the rule, including a dreadful year when the Knicks lost a shot at a title because of it. The urge to join the fight, and to protect teammates, can be strong. The rule has snared venerable stars like Reggie Miller and Charles Barkley. But eventually, just about everyone caught on.

And, in part because of that rule, the NBA no longer has a chronic fighting problem. It worked. This rule helps many dozens time a year, when little sparks fly on the court and don't become big fires -- because the few players on the court can't muster the energy to make that kind of trouble alone. And, the three referees on the court can typically keep a lid on two pissed off players. Twelve rushing in to help the two -- that's much tougher.

At the same time, the league is always trying to dispel the notion that everything is subjective, and they hold all the power to arbitrarily decide this or that. Even though that's true in these cases, the league, largely in response to fan criticism, has tried to make clear and enforceable rules where possible. The get-suspended-if-you-leave-the-bench-rule is one of the clearest and most enforceable. You don't want to be suspended? You stay on the bench. Are there any players who don't know that?

Every rule has counterexamples that make it look bad. Speeding laws seem necessary, but does the government really not want police cars, ambulances, and the cars of women in labor to speed? And many of us like leash laws. But how about those frisbee dogs that perform at halftime sometimes -- they're surely breaking the law almost everywhere they perform.

The Suns are the counterexample to the bench-clearing rule. It can suck to be a counterexample.

And yes, sure, you break those rules sometimes, when there's a really compelling argument. But what is the compelling argument here?

I guess the one that has all of us motivated is: because it means so much and because what they did was so harmless. All true, but that's an impossible standard to maintain consistently in the future. Who wants to decide who's harmless and who isn't? Who wants to say which games are really important next time?

Stu Jackson, as reported by the AP, addressed the various "Get Out of Jail Free" cards people like me were trying to give the Suns:

The "Amare Stoudemire was checking into the game" theory: "I've not seen a player report in quite that way," Jackson said.
The "Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen were on the court in the second quarter when Francisco Elson and James Jones got tangled up" theory: "Both players got up," Jackson said. "There was no altercation, and they ran down to the other end of the court."
Is he wrong on either count?

Similarly, is Horry's punishment too light? You really can't say that it is. It just wasn't that terrible of a foul -- it was actually pretty similar to Baron Davis's elbow to Derek Fisher. (Actually, Davis's may have been worse, because the NBA has a rule that an elbow to the head is an automatic suspension.) Horry's punishment is more or less in step with the way other similar suspensions have been made in the past and most of us tend to agree with that "let them play" approach. I don't see too many people livid that Baron Davis is lacing up his sneakers right now.

Long before this series began, over the course of years, the NBA had, with its actions, sent the message to players that physical play and even the occasional dirty tricks would be more or less taken in stride. But bench-clearing brawls were never acceptable, and would be squashed long before they had a chance to begin. With that in mind, Stu Jackson's announcement was, I suppose, pretty predictable.

The downside of those two consistent trends in disciplining is that it would seem to create a dirty playoff tactic: wait until there are some valuable players on the bench, then send in some bozo to deck the other team's star, just to see if you can tempt good players onto the court.

I'm sure all this hurts like crazy if you're pulling for the Suns. The rules have monkeyed with your dreams. I'm not happy about it either.

But now there's only one thing to do: suck it up and win anyway. It really could happen, and it would make the Suns America's team.

(The one thing that I really have pangs of regret about here? The Suns have not gotten anything useful out of the last few drafts, even giving up picks for cash as a cost-saving move, when reasonably good players were available. Be great to be able to roll the dice with twenty minutes from a promising young whipper-snapper in a game like this.)

It'll be tough, but everything is tough when you are dead set on winning an NBA championship.

Time to step up, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones, Raja Bell, and especially Shawn Marion. No more hesitating on the jumper, Kurt Thomas. Time to wow us all again, Steve Nash. And maybe we'll even have a Jalen Rose or a Marcus Banks sighting.

Let's do this. And if Phoenix does manage the heroics in Game 5? Then in Game 6, Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire return rested and motivated.

UPDATE: ESPN's Chris Sheridan (Insider) finds this ruling insane:

The 15-minute conference call with Jackson was one of the most contentious I have ever been on, with Jackson even acknowledging that if the leave-the-bench rule needs to be revisited, then the league office would be wide open to revisiting it. Jackson said the ruling to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for a game each (and Robert Horry for two games) was ultimately commissioner David Stern's, but that Stern had accepted his recommendation.

The league office has historically enforced this rule rigidly, though Jackson would not speak to exactly which precedents he considered before imposing the suspensions.

But just because a rule was enforced with a lack of common sense in the past does not mean it must be enforced unreasonably in perpetuity.

I absolutely think we need to start a smart and open-minded discussion about how the rules should change to prevent these kinds of absurd situations. It should change, no doubt, soon. I'm interested in hearing ideas about how.


A TrueHoop reader emailed a great point -- by this logic, if James Jones had noticed that Duncan and Bowen had wandered on the court in the second quarter, he should have immediately decked Francisco Elson. There's your altercation. Mr. Commissioner! Presumably Jones, Duncan, and Bowen would have all been suspended for Game 5 -- a big win for Phoenix.

Makes no sense.

But just ditching a long-term, iron-clad rule in one instance, without any special reason? (This rule almost always seems absurd when it is enforced. That's nothing new. Players who run on the court and throw punches can be suspended for the punches. Players who are suspended just for this rule have always done, essentially, nothing, except break this rule.) I can't understand how this case is different from all the others that have preceded it. If you believe in rules, this is the decision you have to live with.

What happens if there's another brawl in this series, and some San Antonio players leave the bench? Do they get the special "these are important games" waiver too?

The fix to whatever problem is going on now should be permanent and long-term, not a one-off.



------------------------------------------------------------

For god sakes people, read this, understand it, and accept it. This is a well written unbiased opinion.

first paris Hilton in jail, now Amare suspended. What is the world coming to?

"You don't want to be suspended? You stay on the bench. Are there any players who don't know that?"

Damn... finally, someone with a brain.

Thats what is amazing. Baron Davis didn't get suspended a single game for his elbow. Yet Horry somehow got 2 game suspension...one of which was for the foul (which is nothing compared to Davis's foul on Fischer)????? Doesn't make sense.

The ruling is ok based on the rule. The rule is ridiculous! I have no doubt that the leauge will change the rule this offseason. In the meantime, the Spurs get another title because of a bad rule that fucked up a great series. It's a sad day! The only good thing to come out of this (as a fan of neither team) is that I'm going to win my bet on the Spurs in this series and my bet on the Spurs to win the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Testing

Thats what is amazing. Baron Davis didn't get suspended a single game for his elbow. Yet Horry somehow got 2 game suspension...one of which was for the foul (which is nothing compared to Davis's foul on Fischer)????? Doesn't make sense.

---

davis hit a black man. horry hit the great white hype.

Quote:

---

I have no doubt that the leauge will change the rule this offseason.

---

To what?

"During an altercation, a player may run from the bench 20 feet onto the floor in the following cases:

__________________

__________________

__________________"

Please fill in the blanks for all of us.

Quote:

---

the Spurs get another title because of a bad rule that fucked up a great series.

---

Dont be dense. IF the spurs win tonight, which grant it, is likely, they still aren't a lock to win a trophy, nor are they a lock to win this series.


If you are a suns fan, have some fucking respect for your team for god sake.

there is no way in hell the rule will be changed. not in a million years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

In the meantime, the Spurs get another title because of a bad rule that fucked up a great series.

---

Has there EVER been a title won on whose fairness everyone agreed? Hell no. There are bad rules, bad calls, dirty plays called, dirty plays not called... Just ask the teams that lost. The teams that win can afford to be objective and rational.

Here's King Kaufman from Salon:

Asinine.

There isn't a better word to describe the NBA's decision to suspend Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns from Game 5 of Phoenix's playoff series against the San Antonio Spurs.

But here are a few more: Mind-boggling. Tin-eared. Shortsighted. Unfair. Idiotic. Ludicrous.

Diaw and Stoudemire were both sentenced to one game on the sidelines Tuesday for leaving the bench area following Robert Horry's hard foul on Steve Nash at the end of Game 4, which the Suns won to even the series 2-2. Horry was suspended for two games, one for sending Nash flying and another for throwing a sort of punch at Raja Bell of the Suns, who got up in Horry's face after the foul.

Bell, who actually helped escalate the situation, which is what the NBA's rules are designed to prevent, wasn't punished.

The suspensions put the Suns at a huge disadvantage for the pivotal Game 5. The single greatest determining factor in the outcome of the most exciting series of the NBA playoff system, between the two best surviving teams, may end up being a decision made in the league office, one that easily could have and should have gone another way.

That is asinine. It's no way to run a sport.

Diaw and Stoudemire took several steps toward Horry after he knocked Nash into the padded front of the scorer's table Monday, but they were herded back to the bench by Suns coaches before they got anywhere near him. The NBA's rule against players leaving the bench area during a fight were created to prevent bench-clearing brawls, and the Suns followed the spirit of the rule by keeping their players away from the action.

There was no brawl, just some pushing, mostly between Horry and Bell, with Horry shoving a forearm toward Bell's face at one point.

No reasonable person -- even one who roots for the Spurs -- could look at what took place and conclude that a fair response would be to suspend two key players from the fouled team because they took a few steps toward a brewing altercation without joining it.

No observer with any sense would think it just that although Monday night's bad situation was caused by the Spurs and the only real violence was committed by a Spur, the Spurs lose only a journeyman rotation player -- though one with an exaggerated reputation for hitting clutch shots -- while the Suns lose a first-team all-NBA player and a versatile sixth man.

But the NBA isn't interested in reason, justice or fairness.

"It is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of correctness," said NBA executive vice president Stu Jackson, the league's discipline czar, "and this is the right decision at this point of time."

It's not about fairness. Got that, folks?

The NBA's greatest public relations problem is the perception by fans that the games aren't fair, that referees call the games to favor superstar players and whichever team the league wants to win, usually the one with the more marketable superstar.

Commissioner David Stern thinks the biggest problem is the perception of the league as a haven for hip-hop-influenced thugs. That's why his major initiatives of the past few years, other than the stupid synthetic ball briefly used this season, have been aimed at cleaning up that image. Those initiatives include a higher minimum age, a dress code and Draconian enforcement of behavior rules, which has turned the NBA into a technical-foul festival.

This thug business is a big issue with the corporate fat cats who buy the luxury suites and have Stern's ear. And don't think there aren't some racial issues going on with the mostly white corporate crowd having a problem with the young black guys acting out. That same crowd hasn't been heard calling for a crackdown on fighting in the NHL.

But out here among the public, for every conversation about pimped-out clothes and tattoos and angry young men, there are hundreds about how there are different rules for different players. Fans and former fans by the thousands, and maybe by the millions, believe the fix is in when the ball goes up.

And what the NBA really wants you to know is this: It's not about fairness. That's the message. In a sports landscape in which baseball is in perpetual crisis mode because the apparent widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs is seen by fans as giving some players an unacceptably unfair advantage, the tin-eared NBA is telling fans not to worry, it's not about fairness.

"No one here at the league office wants to suspend players any game," Jackson said Tuesday, "much less a pivotal game in the second round of a playoff series. But the rule, however, is the rule, and we intend to apply it consistently."

Ludicrous.

If the rule is the rule, and all that matters is consistency, not applying the rule to the specifics of the situation, not taking into account the context and the damage done or any sense of fair play, what is the point of Stu Jackson's job? An intern could look at the video, see that Stoudemire and Diaw took a few steps, and announce the suspensions.

If all that matters is consistency, if the rule is the rule, why was Derek Fisher of the Utah Jazz not disciplined for breaking the dress code by showing up for Game 2 of the Jazz's series against the Golden State Warriors in a T-shirt and jeans? Sure, he'd just rushed in from New York where his infant daughter had had lifesaving surgery earlier in the day, but the rule is the rule.

Keep in mind, for consistency's sake, that this is the series in which San Antonio's Bruce Bowen was not suspended for kicking Nash in the crotch.

If no one at the league office wants to suspend players for the pivotal game of a second-round playoff series, here's an idea: Don't do it. Jackson talks as though his hands are tied, like a judge forced by legislated sentencing minimums to hand down a punishment he doesn't believe is just. That's simply not the case.

Jackson said he makes a recommendation to Stern, but the final decision is the commissioner's. And there's no appeals process. Stern is a dictator. If the rules aren't working -- and they are clearly not working, as even Jackson acknowledged during a conference call with reporters, suggesting that the league might reevaluate the suspension rule in the off-season -- Stern can make a ruling that works.

But Stern would rather torpedo the product in the service of a foolish consistency. It's mind-boggling.

So what happens is the team that committed the violent act, made the dirty play, loses a player for two games who during the regular season contributed 16 minutes, four points, three rebounds, a block and an assist per game. The team that was fouled, that restrained itself before retaliating violently, loses 64 minutes, 30 points, 14 rebounds, five blocks and five assists.

Truer words were never spoken than "It's not about fairness."

What this shortsighted policy does is create incentive for teams to do exactly what Horry did Monday night. Why would you not send an end-of-the-bench guy onto the floor during the playoffs to commit an act of violence when the other team's best player or, even better, players are on the bench getting a rest?

If any of those guys have the natural, in-the-moment, adrenaline-charged, human reaction of moving toward their battered teammate to help, they're gone for the next game. Your guy gets tossed too, but that's a hell of a trade. Just ask the Spurs. If the other team doesn't take the bait, well, at least you tried, and all you lose is an end-of-the-bench guy for a game.

The rule also creates an incentive for brawls to escalate. Once a player has taken a step or two from the bench toward an altercation, there's no reason to stop short of joining in. You're already suspended, pal. Might as well keep going and get a few licks in. It's idiotic.

It also can't be lost on teams that when the Suns didn't escalate the incident when Bowen kicked Nash, Bowen didn't get suspended. When they did escalate the Horry incident -- Bell going nose to nose with Horry, even ignoring the bogus "leaving the bench area" charge -- Horry did get suspended.

It would seem that escalating the incident forces the league's hand into suspending the instigator, wouldn't it? Here's another idea: Get seat belts for your star players, so they can't leave the bench area if they want to, but instruct those last three towel-wavers on the bench to go into attack mode at the first hard foul by the other team.

Ten years ago P.J. Brown of the Miami Heat, angry at what he perceived to be New York Knicks guard Charlie Ward's attempts to injure him, threw Ward over his shoulder in Game 5, which started a brawl that resulted in several key Knicks players being suspended for leaving the bench. The Heat, down 3-1, won that game, then beat the shorthanded Knicks twice more to take the series.

Incredibly, with that incident in its past, the NBA hasn't created a system that deals with situations like these in a fair and just way. Or maybe it's not so incredible. After all, as we learned Tuesday, it's not about fairness.

For those of you who are interested in sports that aren't fair, Game 5 is scheduled for Wednesday night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Testing

Thats what is amazing. Baron Davis didn't get suspended a single game for his elbow. Yet Horry somehow got 2 game suspension...one of which was for the foul (which is nothing compared to Davis's foul on Fischer)????? Doesn't make sense.

---

That is what some Suns fans don't understand. Horry was suspended 2 games so as to balance Amare's and Boris' suspensions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nkdlunch

there is no way in hell the rule will be changed. not in a million years.

---

Exactly....Stern and company aren't going to change the rules just because it possibly changed the outcome of one game..And no one can even be sure of that.

Might as well look for them to change the "no blood" playing rule also....

Didn't that change the outcome of game 1? If you take a poll, I'm sure you will find that it did. Phoenix wins without that rule.

What do people not understand about a rule being a rule? That's the problem with today's society. No one want's to take responsibility for what they did.

Did Robert give a hard foul and raise his arm at Bell? Yes. Did Amare and Diaw leave the bench during an altercation thus going against league rules? Yes. I fail to see the problem with the punishments handed out.

it's not fair that a couple of players were incapable of following a simple rule?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGambler

Exactly....Stern and company aren't going to change the rules just because it possibly changed the outcome of one game..And no one can even be sure of that.

Might as well look for them to change the "no blood" playing rule also....

Didn't that change the outcome of game 1? If you take a poll, I'm sure you will find that it did. Phoenix wins without that rule.

---

The rule just needs to be adjusted to where it's not so "black & white". I have no clue how they go about doing that but it's been the history/pattern of Stern & league to make changes when the majority of the national media thinks a rule or similar is ridiculous. I'm sure the rule will be addressed in the offseason and I'm guessing that they'll adjust it.

"Findog"

Thanks for posting yet another "analyst" who is ignoring the facts of the matter and is getting an emotional response.


We dont have enough people placing the blame one everyone and everything in sight, vs the people actually breaking the rule. We definately needed one more.


Im going to light my desk on fire today at work. Because, "god damnit its cold in here, and i deserve to be warm" "but...soul_patch, what about the rules regarding arson and killing people??" "well fuck that, im cold, they need to make an exception!, dumbasss should learn to fix the AC, i cant help it i have to set my desk on fire to stay warm"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

The rule just needs to be adjusted to where it's not so "black & white". I have no clue how they go about doing that but it's been the history/pattern of Stern & league to make changes when the majority of the national media thinks a rule or similar is ridiculous. I'm sure the rule will be addressed in the offseason and I'm guessing that they'll adjust it.

---

I don't think there is any other way than to have a black and white rule. If you add too much gray to it, then there is room for all sorts of interpretations.

Bring back the brawls. :smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

Bring back the brawls. :smokin

---

I doubt the Suns can handle any of it.

Open the floodgates!

Quote:

---

Thanks for posting yet another "analyst" who is ignoring the facts of the matter and is getting an emotional response.



Im going to light my desk on fire today at work. Because, "god damnit its cold in here, and i deserve to be warm" "but...soul_patch, what about the rules regarding arson and killing people??" "well fuck that, im cold, they need to make an exception!, dumbasss should learn to fix the AC, i cant help it i have to set my desk on fire to stay warm

---

What is that about being emotional?

I have no problem with punishing these guys for breaking a rule, and I'll just repeat my argument from another thread: Roll these punishments over to the next regular season. It shouldn't decide a playoff series. Jackson's stance is that a rule is a rule and they're only applying it consistently, no matter if it's a scrub or an All Star involved, regular season game or Game 7 of the Finals.

Well, that's horseshit to claim they have no flexibility in meting out punishment or using discretion in order to determine whether or not the Horry/Nash scrum is an altercation but the Jones/Elson thing isn't. They used discretion to label Elson/Jones as nothing but determined an altercation had occurred with Nash/Horry when all it was was jostling and harsh words exchanged. It's pretty simply actually: either claim that the Nash/Horry incident didn't rise to the level of an "altercation" when no punches were thrown and no fights broke out and let things get decided on the court, or do something completely asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steppy

I don't think there is any other way than to have a black and white rule. If you add too much gray to it, then there is room for all sorts of interpretations.

---

You might be right, but I'm sure the league will address it and try. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, just the rule. It just seems wrong to penalize a team for players actions surrounding an incident that they didn't start nor finish. I'm over it though as I'm almost guaranteed to win my bets on the Spurs now :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

What is that about being emotional?

I have no problem with punishing these guys for breaking a rule, and I'll just repeat my argument from another thread: Roll these punishments over to the next regular season. It shouldn't decide a playoff series. Jackson's stance is that a rule is a rule and they're only applying it consistently, no matter if it's a scrub or an All Star involved, regular season game or Game 7 of the Finals.

Well, that's horseshit to claim they have no flexibility in meting out punishment or using discretion in order to determine whether or not the Horry/Nash scrum is an altercation but the Jones/Elson thing isn't. They used discretion to label Elson/Jones as nothing but determined an altercation had occurred with Nash/Horry when all it was was jostling and harsh words exchanged. It's pretty simply actually: either claim that the Nash/Horry incident didn't rise to the level of an "altercation" when no punches were thrown and no fights broke out and let things get decided on the court, or do something completely asinine.

---

if jackson says it's not an altercation, it's not unless stern says it is. why is this so hard to understand? why don't we just roll over suspensions till the end of a career then while we're at it?

Quote:

---

But now there's only one thing to do: suck it up and win anyway. It really could happen, and it would make the Suns America's team.

---

This is what we're up against, folks. Frick'n media DARLINGS.

Quote:

---

if jackson says it's not an altercation, it's not unless stern says it is.

---

Rule by fiat. It's true what they say, dictatorships aren't nearly as messy.

Quote:

---

why is this so hard to understand?

---

Why is it so hard to understand that this sequence of claiming the league had no flexibility to keep both teams at full-strength is disengenuous bullshit? Why is it so hard to understand that hardcore basketball fans want to see this series decided at full strength and not because Amare and Diaw are getting a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense?

Quote:

---

why don't we just roll over suspensions till the end of a career then while we're at it?

---

No, why don't we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to November? Deciding a championship on the court is more important. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bringdown

This is what we're up against, folks. Frick'n media DARLINGS.

---

What's ridiculous is that this will forever change how people view the Spurs (whether they win or not) and the Spurs did nothing. It was the league that handed out the suspensions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

What's ridiculous is that this will forever change how people view the Spurs (whether they win or not) and the Spurs did nothing. It was the league that handed out the suspensions.

---

Yes, let's shed a tear for the poor Spurs, and their budding dynasty. You and I would both jump at the chance to be hated for always winning the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Rule by fiat. It's true what they say, dictatorships aren't nearly as messy.



Why is it so hard to understand that this sequence of claiming the league had no flexibility to keep both teams at full-strength is disengenuous bullshit? Why is it so hard to understand that hardcore basketball fans want to see this series decided at full strength and not because Amare and Diaw are getting a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense?



No, why don't we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to November? Deciding a championship on the court is more important. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

---

amare and diaw are getting the appropriate punishment for what they did. there is no grey area. you step out of the immediate bench area during an altercation, you get suspended the next game. it's very clear. it's not up for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

amare and diaw are getting the appropriate punishment for what they did. there is no grey area. you step out of the immediate bench area during an altercation, you get suspended the next game. it's very clear. it's not up for debate.

---

What IS up for debate is how is the Jones/Elson thing not an altercation but Horry/Nash is? In either incident, were any punches thrown? No. You can't claim that Stu Jackson and David Stern together didn't exercise discretion and subjective judgment -- they clearly did.

R A J A B E L L. If anybody is to blame for suckering Amare and Diaw into the rule violation, it is Raja Bell. Nash was on the floor, seemingly unable to move. That idiot Bell rushed at Horry and created an altercation. Suns fans should be venting their anger at Bell's stupidity for turning a hard foul into an altercation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

What IS up for debate is how is the Jones/Elson thing not an altercation but Horry/Nash is? In either incident, were any punches thrown? No. You can't claim that Stu Jackson and David Stern together didn't exercise discretion and subjective judgment -- they clearly did.

---

bell escalated the horry foul into an altercation, and horry cemented it as one with the elbow. there was nothing remotely like that in the jones/elson situation. if jackson and stern had decided otherwise, we would have to deal with that too. the rule lays everything out clearly, and the jones/elson situation was not found to be an altercation. simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

bell escalated the horry foul into an altercation, and horry cemented it as one with the elbow. there was nothing remotely like that in the jones/elson situation. if jackson and stern had decided otherwise, we would have to deal with that too. the rule lays everything out clearly, and the jones/elson situation was not found to be an altercation. simple.

---

SUBJECTIVE. No punches thrown = no altercation. That's my subjective judgment. If the NBA was interested in settling this thing on the court and not in their offices, then they'd simply label the Horry/Nash incident as a non-altercation. Outside of San Antonio, who would be screaming bloody murder? The fans that get to see this series decided at full-strength? I think not. There was plenty of wiggle room for Jackson and Stern, they just chose not to exercise it.

Findog, i don't think your idea about holding the suspensions untill next season is necissarily a bad one, i myself would have rather this all not have happened.


But the fact is, as said 123123-=09-09-80129834029384^2 times before, this is a very cut and dry rule, it was broken...cause and effect. It sucks, i agree, but everyone plays by this rule at all times, it shouldn't be adjusted just because its now affecting something you (and im using you as a figurative here) have an interest in.

If people had such a disdain for this rule, and think its dumb, why did you not try and get it changed 4 years ago, 8 years ago...hell why not oppose it when it was released?


it is a fanboi response to a harsh judgement on your teams players. Id be really pissed off too if duncan and ginobli were out, but inside me somewhere id know what was right, and that they are getting what is desrved based on the ruleset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

SUBJECTIVE. No punches thrown = no altercation.

---

NOT subjective. Not only WERE there punches thrown, observe the emotions involved in each situation and try to say the latter wasn't an altercation.

You seem intelligent; please stop reaching.

Quote:

---

But the fact is, as said times before, this is a very cut and dry rule, it was broken...cause and effect. It sucks, i agree, but everyone plays by this rule at all times, it shouldn't be adjusted just because its now affecting something you (and im using you as a figurative here) have an interest in.

---

The rule is cut and dried. Is the definition of an "altercation" so cut and dried? For some people that means punches thrown. For others it means harsh words exchanged and pushing and shoving.

Quote:

---

If people had such a disdain for this rule, and think its dumb, why did you not try and get it changed 4 years ago, 8 years ago...hell why not oppose it when it was released?

---

Well, now that it's potentially affecting the outcome of the "real" NBA Finals, yeah, let's change it now. Why become such sticklers for rules now? Derek Fisher wasn't abiding by the dress code when he arrived late at the Arena for Game 2. A rule's a rule, but this one wasnt enforced. No action was taken against Jason Richardson or Baron Davis for their flagrants at the end of Game Four.

Quote:

---

it is a fanboi response to a harsh judgement on your teams players.

---

Uh, no, my team is the Mavwrecks, not the Suns. Incidentally, I'm rooting for the Spurs in this series and wish to see them move on, but not like this.

Quote:

---

Id be really pissed off too if duncan and ginobli were out, but inside me somewhere id know what was right, and that they are getting what is desrved based on the rulese

---

Maybe you're the exception, but if the shoe was on the other foot, I have no doubt how the majority of Spurs fans would react if this had happened to their team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackFlagg

NOT subjective. Not only WERE there punches thrown, observe the emotions involved in each situation and try to say the latter wasn't an altercation.

You seem intelligent; please stop reaching.

---

Does anyone have the link to the youtube video? Some people are claiming Bell shoved Horry, others say it was a closed fist and a punch. Even if the latter is true, Amare and Diaw rushed to check on Nash. When Nash gets up and charges Horry, they slip back to the bench and are restrained by the Suns coaching staff.

Quote:

---

Uh, no, my team is the Mavwrecks, not the Suns. Incidentally, I'm rooting for the Spurs in this series and wish to see them move on, but not like this.

---

once again, my you was meant figuratively.

I still stand by the point that, if this rule had the potential to cause such a fuss, why only fuss when it affects your best players, would it cause this fuss if your worst two players were suspended? What if it was the second to the last game of the season for the bobcats, no playoffs in sight...this happened and Okafor, wallace, morrison all got the axe for the last game of the season...not really any impact other than they'd probably have a worse record than they already have....would you care? or would you say, "well that sucks, but they knew the rules"



to argue it may have not been an altercation. did you see the picture? the one that was on ESPN all afternoon yesterday and this morning.

There are jerseys being pulled, players being bear hugged to be restrained, fire in peoples eyes, stiff arms applied, etc...if that is not an altercation im not really sure what one is then. I will give you this, had Raja Bell not ran after horry being the hothead enforcer, i give it a 95% chance none of this would have happened. Horry would have gotten his Flagrant foul, possible suspended, suns would have won and would have been gearing up to complete what they want so badly.


Instead, Amare decided he wanted to gift wrap the series for the spurs by not using what little brains he has in his head. San Antonio cannot do anything about this.
who is really to blame here?

Quote:

---

I still stand by the point that, if this rule had the potential to cause such a fuss, why only fuss when it affects your best players, would it cause this fuss if your worst two players were suspended? What if it was the second to the last game of the season for the bobcats, no playoffs in sight...this happened and Okafor, wallace, morrison all got the axe for the last game of the season...not really any impact other than they'd probably have a worse record than they already have....would you care? or would you say, "well that sucks, but they knew the rules"

---

I addressed this in another thread, but I'll do it here again. The one objection to rolling the suspensions over to the season opener in November is that it cheapens the punishment and removes the incentive to abide by the rule. Here is where I think they need some flexibility in meting out punishment. Yes, this rule has helped the refs keep order and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but here is my solution. If a player breaks the rule in a playoff game, his team has a choice: He can serve the one game suspension and $35K fine immediately, or he can roll it over to the next season. If he and the team choose to roll it over, the penalty becomes 10 games and corresponding loss of salary for those 10. So if it had been Pat Burke or Sean Marks making their way to the court, D'Antoni could sit them down immediately.

This is the entertainment business. It's not in the League's interest for Amare and Diaw to sit this one out and for this to probably swing the series to San Antonio. I think that's reasonable: it preserves the consequences of breaking rules while still allowing for playoff games to be decided on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

SUBJECTIVE. No punches thrown = no altercation. That's my subjective judgment. If the NBA was interested in settling this thing on the court and not in their offices, then they'd simply label the Horry/Nash incident as a non-altercation. Outside of San Antonio, who would be screaming bloody murder? The fans that get to see this series decided at full-strength? I think not. There was plenty of wiggle room for Jackson and Stern, they just chose not to exercise it.

---

people could scream bloody murder all they want if it was ruled not an altercation, but if that was the decision it was the decision and all the screaming in the world wouldn't do anything about it. the NBA is not a democracy. they had to enforce the rule the way it was written, and they did. if only the refs would be this consistent.

Quote:

---

If he and the team choose to roll it over, the penalty becomes 10 games and corresponding loss of salary for those 10.

---

Yeah, the players' union will be all for that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Yeah, the players' union will be all for that one.

---

You think Amare and Diaw wouldn't take that deal right now if they had the option? 10 games loss of salary to Amare means one less ivory backscratcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

You think Amare and Diaw wouldn't take that deal right now if they had the option? 10 games loss of salary to Amare means one less ivory backscratcher.

---

I don't think you understand how rules are made.

And of course they would take the deal.

And rush the courts all the time without restraint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I don't think you understand how rules are made.

And of course they would take the deal.

And rush the courts all the time without restraint.

---

There is no incentive right now for teams to follow the rules -- if you step out on the court after watching your floor leader hit the deck, as a natural impulse in the heat of a playoff game, you might as well get your licks in instead of heading back to the bench. And you might as well follow the Spurs' lead and go all Bob Probert on teams as a tactic. The way this sequence played out does nothing to prevent what the NBA is trying to avoid.

Quote:

---

There is no incentive right now for teams to follow the rules

---

Sure there is. Eight Suns that were on and behind the bench followed the rule in game four, so they get to play game five. Pretty strong incentive.

Quote:

---

if you step out on the court after watching your floor leader hit the deck, as a natural impulse in the heat of a playoff game

---

then you don't get suspended. Keep running on the court from the vicinity of the bench, and you get suspended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Sure there is. Eight Suns that were on and behind the bench followed the rule in game four, so they get to play game five. Pretty strong incentive.

---

Where is the incentive to not pull a stunt like Horry did? He just swung the series in his team's favor. And I think he's too cool-headed to have lost impulse control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Where is the incentive to not pull a stunt like Horry did?

---

Two game suspension. Do you think before you post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

SUBJECTIVE. No punches thrown = no altercation. That's my subjective judgment. If the NBA was interested in settling this thing on the court and not in their offices, then they'd simply label the Horry/Nash incident as a non-altercation. Outside of San Antonio, who would be screaming bloody murder? The fans that get to see this series decided at full-strength? I think not. There was plenty of wiggle room for Jackson and Stern, they just chose not to exercise it.

---

I really don't see how you can't call that scrum with coaches and refs pulling players apart from each other anything but an "altercation".

Just like I don't see any way you can call the Elson/Jones thing an "altercation" when the only physicality was Elson trying to dislodge himself from sitting on Jones shoulders. They both basically just started going down the court to play. Of course, on that play Duncan and Bowen probably should have been given Techs and Jones a foul (by rule that was a foul on him), but it's certainly not an altercation.

Dantoni has earned about 4 techs on this series for his constant screaming of "bullshit!" for 10 minutes following a play he doesn't agree with, so hey, I'll call the missing techs makeup non-calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Rule by fiat. It's true what they say, dictatorships aren't nearly as messy.



Why is it so hard to understand that this sequence of claiming the league had no flexibility to keep both teams at full-strength is disengenuous bullshit? Why is it so hard to understand that hardcore basketball fans want to see this series decided at full strength and not because Amare and Diaw are getting a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense?



No, why don't we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to November? Deciding a championship on the court is more important. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

---

The league makes billions of dollars with its image. Fights cost them huge sums of money. The rule is there for that reason. By the way, the ratings won't be down for tonight's game, so suspending those idiots for breaking the simplest rule in the book is going to be a positive for the league.

By the way, if we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to next season, Horry gets off with no punishment because he's retiring.

By the way, if Horry gets suspended for hitting Bell above the shoulders, it's an altercation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Two game suspension. Do you think before you post?

---

Parttime bench player for a first-team all NBA and a versatile sixth man. I'd say Horry had all the incentive in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Parttime bench player for a first-team all NBA and a versatile sixth man. I'd say Horry had all the incentive in the world.

---

I'd say Amare and Boris were stupid for leaving the bench area and giving away the advantage they were going to get from Horry's supension. Again, the eight other guys didn't leave the bench. What was their problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The league makes billions of dollars with its image. Fights cost them huge sums of money. The rule is there for that reason. By the way, the ratings won't be down for tonight's game, so suspending those idiots for breaking the simplest rule in the book is going to be a positive for the league.

By the way, if we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to next season, Horry gets off with no punishment because he's retiring.

---

But at what cost of pissing off fans? The League perceives that fights cost them money by turning off older, white conservative fans. How much money do those people contribute to the economic wealth of the League? How many of those people watch games that don't involve their teams? The League's bedrock of support comes from basketball junkies and the African-American community, which overlap in a venn diagram. I have no problem with Horry getting let off the hook in regards to a suspension. I thought getting ejected was punishment enough.

Quote:

---

The League perceives that fights cost them money by turning off older, white conservative fans. How much money do those people contribute to the economic wealth of the League?

---

Is this a serious question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'd say Amare and Boris were stupid for leaving the bench area and giving away the advantage they were going to get from Horry's supension. Again, the eight other guys didn't leave the bench. What was their problem?

---

I think their problem was seeing the MVP getting slammed into the scorer's table on a thug move and they were restrained by the coaching staff and didn't do anything to escalate the situation. If they must be punished, punish them next year. If you think letting that sequence decide this series is reasonable, then I can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Is this a serious question?

---

Yes. I would bet five, fair-weather, fickle white "fans" are equal to about 100 basketball junkies in their economic impact on the league. And in the long run, the League is better off catering to the hardcore fans. They're not going to grow their fanbase in arid soil.

Quote:

---

I think their problem was seeing the MVP getting slammed into the scorer's table on a thug move and they were restrained by the coaching staff and didn't do anything to escalate the situation.

---

But 4/5 os the off-court team didn't react that way. What is wrong with those guys?

Quote:

---

If they must be punished, punish them next year.

---

Have them face the consequences for their actions now.

Quote:

---

If you think letting that sequence decide this series is reasonable, then I can't help you.

---

If you think rules shouldn't be enforced because the players breaking them happen to be stars, then i can't help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Yes. I would bet five, fair-weather, fickle white "fans" are equal to about 100 basketball junkies in their economic impact on the league. And in the long run, the League is better off catering to the hardcore fans. They're not going to grow their fanbase in arid soil.

---

How many luxury suites do the junkies buy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Parttime bench player for a first-team all NBA and a versatile sixth man. I'd say Horry had all the incentive in the world.

---

You think Horry was expecting those two players to leave the bench? Horry was not expecting anything other than maybe dantoni or Bell getting in his face, which bell did and Horry did a stupid thing in response.

It's not an incentive if it cannot be expected.

Quote:

---

If you think rules shouldn't be enforced because the players breaking them happen to be stars, then i can't help you.

---

How is rolling over and increasing the punishment in the 07/08 season not holding them accountable for their actions? Why the rush and let THIS decide a playoff series? Of course there are different rules for different players. TNT and ABC are not ponying up lots of money so we can see Pat Burke and Sean Marks get major burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fyatuk

You think Horry was expecting those two players to leave the bench? Horry was not expecting anything other than maybe dantoni or Bell getting in his face, which bell did and Horry did a stupid thing in response.

It's not an incentive if it cannot be expected.

---

Findog's argument is that players can't help but rush the court at the sight of a hard foul, that they lack any self control and must have their instincts placated -- even though 80% of the Suns bench exhibited just the kind of self-control he claims NBA players simply don't posess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Does anyone have the link to the youtube video? Some people are claiming Bell shoved Horry, others say it was a closed fist and a punch. Even if the latter is true, Amare and Diaw rushed to check on Nash. When Nash gets up and charges Horry, they slip back to the bench and are restrained by the Suns coaching staff.

---

it's really hard to see if there was a closed fist and/or punch, but i think jackson would have recommended suspension of bell as well if he saw it. bell's action probably caused it to be labeled as an altercation though. amare and diaw only returned back to the bench after being restrained and told to go back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

How many luxury suites do the junkies buy?

---

How many games do they watch in November-January as opposed to the fatcats? How much money do they spend on apparel as opposed to the country club set?

Quote:

---

Why the rush and let THIS decide a playoff series? Of course there are different rules for different players. TNT and ABC are not ponying up lots of money so we can see Pat Burke and Sean Marks get major burn.

---

Probobly cause then they wouldn't learn the lesson.

"Eh screw it, so i miss games in november"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

How is rolling over and increasing the punishment in the 07/08 season not holding them accountable for their actions?

---

Are you serious? Maybe we'll punishi you next year -- in the meantime, have a ball.

Quote:

---

Why the rush and let THIS decide a playoff series?

---

So players will take the rules seriously.

Quote:

---

Of course there are different rules for different players. TNT and ABC are not ponying up lots of money so we can see Pat Burke and Sean Marks get major burn.

---

So you favor star treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

Probobly cause then they wouldn't learn the lesson.

"Eh screw it, so i miss games in november"

---

I think escalating the penalty if you roll it over into the regular season works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

How many games do they watch in November-January as opposed to the fatcats?

---

If they buy a luxury suite, who cares?

Quote:

---

How much money do they spend on apparel as opposed to the country club set?

---

Gee, a foam finger or a luxury suite. Hmmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

How is rolling over and increasing the punishment in the 07/08 season not holding them accountable for their actions? Why the rush and let THIS decide a playoff series? Of course there are different rules for different players. TNT and ABC are not ponying up lots of money so we can see Pat Burke and Sean Marks get major burn.

---

It wouldn't necessarily affect the team or the player. If the player retires, they do not suffer any penalty. If the player is a free agent and the team chooses not to resign them, then the team does not suffer the penalty.

Then you also end up with teams not wanting to sign a player who will be suspended for 10 games at the onset, etc.

That is not a good suggestion for a change.

Quote:

---

Are you serious?

---

Dead serious. I'd like to see Spurs fans argue otherwise if they shoe was on the other foot.

Quote:

---

Maybe we'll punishi you next year -- in the meantime, have a ball

---

Yeah, they really escalated that situation and were out of control.

Quote:

---

So you favor star treatment

---

I favor letting a championship get decided on the court. There should be flexibility in determing when to mete out the punishment. If teams want to serve it immediately, it's a game and a $35K fine. If not, then they can sit out more games and lose more money next year.

Personally I think the rule should be as follows:

you leave the bench during an altercation you get an automatic 100,000 dollar fine. I
If you touch an opposing player after you leave the bench you get an automatic 1 game suspension.
If the situation gets out of hand suspensions will be decided by the commisioner.

The hefty fine will motivate most players from leaving the bench, the suspension will prevent most players from escalating the situation once they leave the bench.

The argument that Horry somehow anticipated this response and calculated that there was at least some chance that he could draw suspensions against key Suns is about the most absurd thing I can think of -- the only more absurd contention I've heard is the yarn about Pop ordering the hard foul. I can't imagine that in the timeout that preceded that play, Pop said "Guys, here's the play we want to run. Now, if we don't make the basket, and Finley isn't able to foul Nash after the rebound, and Nash starts heading up the sidelines in front of their bench, I want everyone to clear out so Expendable Rob can put a haymaker on Nash because I think it will provoke Amare and Diaw to get riled up and charge the court." Spare me.

Horry committed a hard foul; undoubtedly that foul was fueled by frustration. Frustration isn't a justification and Horry is being, I think, correctly punished for his actions (though I agree with the thought that Baron Davis somehow got off with extraordinarily light punishment). That's the end of that part of the scenario.

What Diaw and Stoudemire did was break one rule that every player on every team in the league knows to be an absolute no-no. It's not some odd thing that teams have personnel who are specifically tasked with keeping players off the floor when altercations occur. It's also not some odd coincidence that the rest of the Suns' bench stayed in place.

And I'll say again, I think it's beyond ridiculous to argue that there's any justification for delaying punishment for something that has always been punished immediately. If you do that, you're saying that sometimes it's okay to break the rule (or that punishments for identical acts will be treated differently based on when the acts take place -- and really based on who commits the act).

I doubt we'd even be having these conversations if it was Eric Piatkowski and Marcus Banks who'd been suspended. But, unfortunately for the Suns, Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw lacked the poise that Piatkowski and Banks showed during Game 4. That's a Suns issue -- it's not a Spurs issue, and it's not an NBA issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Dead serious. I'd like to see Spurs fans argue otherwise if they shoe was on the other foot.

---

I'd accept the penalty and get on with my life.

Quote:

---

Yeah, they really escalated that situation and were out of control.

---

Your rule would let them run wild the entire playoffs.

Quote:

---

I favor letting a championship get decided on the court. There should be flexibility in determing when to mete out the punishment. If teams want to serve it immediately, it's a game and a $35K fine. If not, then they can sit out more games and lose more money next year.

---

I favor players following the rules and facing the consequences if they don't. This "next year" crap is ridiculous on its face.

Flexibility? Get over it and start gift wrapping their title.

Quote:

---

It wouldn't necessarily affect the team or the player. If the player retires, they do not suffer any penalty.

---

If Horry retires, so what? The point here is to decide these games on the court.

Quote:

---

the player is a free agent and the team chooses not to resign them, then the team does not suffer the penalty.

Then you also end up with teams not wanting to sign a player who will be suspended for 10 games at the onset, etc.

That is not a good suggestion for a change

---

If Amare and Diaw were hitting the market, I doubt that would cause them any problems. Any 12th man is ALWAYS going to be more diligent about where he stands, whether it means keeping his mouth shut when one of the stars busts his balls in the lockerroom or instigating stuff out on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

There is no incentive right now for teams to follow the rules -- if you step out on the court after watching your floor leader hit the deck, as a natural impulse in the heat of a playoff game, you might as well get your licks in instead of heading back to the bench. And you might as well follow the Spurs' lead and go all Bob Probert on teams as a tactic. The way this sequence played out does nothing to prevent what the NBA is trying to avoid.

---

If Amare and Diaw rush onto the court and start swinging, or "getting their licks in", as you call it, they aren't looking at a 1-game suspension. They're looking at 2-3 games, potentially more if the brawl escalates further.

And it worked. Amare and Diaw realized they were about to screw themselves, and ran back to the bench. But they were perilously close to escalating what could have been among the most devastating fights in NBA history. If they manage to make it to Duncan and Manu, you're looking at Nash, Duncan, Manu, Bell, Horry, Amare, Diaw, AND Nash gone for at least a game, possibly 2 or 3. Would have been a better outcome here? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Your rule would let them run wild the entire playoffs.

---

No, it would just preserve the integrity of the League.

Quote:

---

This "next year" crap is ridiculous on its face.

---

Deciding the series in the commish's office is ridiculous on its face. Only way Amare and Diaw should miss tonight's game is if they threw and landed punches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Dead serious. I'd like to see Spurs fans argue otherwise if they shoe was on the other foot.

---

Had two Spurs bench players done the same thing, I'd completely understand the punishment that goes along with that act.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of discretion, as the rule is currently written. It wouldn't be fair to past violators of the rule to change it in midstream just because the rule, as applied to this situation, creates less-than-desireable results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

I favor letting a championship get decided on the court. There should be flexibility in determing when to mete out the punishment. If teams want to serve it immediately, it's a game and a $35K fine. If not, then they can sit out more games and lose more money next year.

---

Then why even have such a rule? Why not offer similar exceptions for violations of other rules during the playoffs? I mean, if Bowen picks up 5 flagrant foul points somehow before these playoffs end, why not just allow him to decide whether he'll take a one game suspension during the WCF or the NBA Finals or whether he'll take a longer suspension at the beginning of the 2007-08 season? If Rasheed Wallace picks up too many technical fouls, why not allow him to decide whether to serve the suspension now, instead of later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

No, it would just preserve the integrity of the League.

---

Enforcing the rules has preserved it nicely.

Quote:

---

Deciding the series in the commish's office is ridiculous on its face.

---

They decided the series when they knowingly broke the rules. Pretty ridiculous of them to do that when 80% of their teammates off the court didn't.

Quote:

---

And it worked. Amare and Diaw realized they were about to screw themselves, and ran back to the bench.

---

Right there, they've adhered to the spirit of the law. They had a natural emotional reaction to watching their MVP go down, then ventured onto the court to check on him, remembered and realized where they were, and returned to the bench. No harm, no foul. The rule as it is worked well enough. Suspending them for tonight is piling on and is akin to an umpire calling a strike on a checked swing. Their intent and the intent of the Suns coaching staff in restraining them should count as enough compliance with the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

But at what cost of pissing off fans? The League perceives that fights cost them money by turning off older, white conservative fans. How much money do those people contribute to the economic wealth of the League? How many of those people watch games that don't involve their teams? The League's bedrock of support comes from basketball junkies and the African-American community, which overlap in a venn diagram. I have no problem with Horry getting let off the hook in regards to a suspension. I thought getting ejected was punishment enough.

---

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read on this message board. The corporations and the people who pay for luxury boxes are the ones that support the NBA. The players aren't supposed to leave the bench. What part of that don't you understand? The rule is in place now. They can't change it. What part of that don't you understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

If Horry retires, so what? The point here is to decide these games on the court.

If Amare and Diaw were hitting the market, I doubt that would cause them any problems. Any 12th man is ALWAYS going to be more diligent about where he stands, whether it means keeping his mouth shut when one of the stars busts his balls in the lockerroom or instigating stuff out on the court.

---

You completely miss the point.

You're change would allow players and/or teams to get out of the situation without a penalty in some situations. That is the definition of an unfair rule.

It's a dumb suggestion.

And to answer your previous ponderings. I would be pissed if it was a couple Spurs who got suspended over something so trivial. I would be pissed at them for breaking a flat black and white rule that's been a part of the NBA longer than they have and is well known and steadily and consistently enforced.

No argument the rule could use some tweaks, more along the lines of let them out of the area as long as the stay away from the scrum (distance requirement and interaction requirement) that are clearly defined. That would allow players to react without being suspended unless they put themselves in a position to escalate it.

Quote:

---

Their intent

---

Now you're a mind reader?

Nice of you to switch your argument from "suspend them later" to "they didn't do anything."

Quote:

---

Then why even have such a rule?

---

Why indeed? Who is happy? The Suns or their fans? Hardcore fans that enjoy watching high-caliber basketball? Non-homer Spurs fans such as yourself, that will have to hear incessant whining from other fanbases about winning in such a manner?

Quote:

---

Why not offer similar exceptions for violations of other rules during the playoffs? I mean, if Bowen picks up 5 flagrant foul points somehow before these playoffs end, why not just allow him to decide whether he'll take a one game suspension during the WCF or the NBA Finals or whether he'll take a longer suspension at the beginning of the 2007-08 season? If Rasheed Wallace picks up too many technical fouls, why not allow him to decide whether to serve the suspension now, instead of later?

---

I think a player should only lose out to participate in playoff games if he throws or lands punches, or commits a Flagrant Two in a playoff game. If we're going to follow this slippery slope to its conclusion, I don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Right there, they've adhered to the spirit of the law. They had a natural emotional reaction to watching their MVP go down, then ventured onto the court to check on him, remembered and realized where they were, and returned to the bench. No harm, no foul. The rule as it is worked well enough. Suspending them for tonight is piling on and is akin to an umpire calling a strike on a checked swing. Their intent and the intent of the Suns coaching staff in restraining them should count as enough compliance with the rule.

---

If the checked swing goes past the front of the plate, it is considered a swing and called a strike. That's what happened here. Yes they checked their swing, but they checked it a little too late.

Posted on True Hoop a little while ago.

http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop

David Stern on Dan Patrick's Show

May 16, 2007 2:45 PM


ESPN Insiders can hear the whole thing here. Stern is not charming -- always been a bully, that one -- but he is not, it strikes me, wrong, either.

Some key Stern quotes:

There is no way to know if someone is running out on the court as friend or foe. When Rudy Tomjanovich was running out to see what was going on and trying to break up a fight, his face was forever changed. ...

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?

I'm unhappy with the result. If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me. I'd be very happy to do it. But to listen to the palaver that Robert Horry changed the series is just silly. What changed the series is that Amare and Boris ran out onto the court.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

Quote:

---

Why indeed?

---

To keep players in the bench area during an altercation.

Quote:

---

I think a player should only lose out to participate in playoff games if he throws or lands punches, or commits a Flagrant Two in a playoff game.

---

I think the rules should apply like they do all season. No slope. No slip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Now you're a mind reader?

Nice of you to switch your argument from "suspend them later" to "they didn't do anything."

---

They didn't violate the spirit of the law, but they DID violate the letter. So punish them next year for those screaming about "rules."

The simple answer is, if Suns players had left Horry alone, there would be no Altercation, and thus, no suspensions.

Again, the Suns brought this on themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Why indeed? Who is happy? The Suns or their fans? Hardcore fans that enjoy watching high-caliber basketball?

---

So basically, there should be exceptions to the rules if the team that is penalized is popular and garners high ratings, merchandise sales etc.

Sounds fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

If we're going to follow this slippery slope to its conclusion, I don't mind.

---

So, essentially, the rules are really only guidelines and don't really mean what they say because the chances of a single team are more important than giving meaning to the express language of the rules?

Again, if this was Piatkowski and Banks in a first round series, you wouldn't care. And I doubt, even if all of the same circumstances applied but it Piatkowski and Banks, that you'd be making this asinine argument. Thus, you're necessarily arguing for selective enforcement with respect to both the identity of the players and the context of their transgressions. I can't see how that's remotely a fair way to enforce rules.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

They didn't violate the spirit of the law, but they DID violate the letter. So punish them next year for those screaming about "rules."

---

They knowingly broke the rule. So punish them now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So, essentially, the rules are really only guidelines and don't really mean what they say because the chances of a single team are more important than giving meaning to the express language of the rules?

---

Argh, like the Pirate's Code...

:lol

I'm not understanding the disconnect from people who think the rule should be ignored or stupidity should be excused.

Why does anyone believe a stupid action should be REWARDED? Spurs did not get rewarded in this situation. What Robert Horry did was not cool but I don't believe he thought that phoenix's players would come out on the court, then again they are THAT stupid. Baron Davis elbowed derek fisher in the face. Did the Utah players run out on the court? NO, they did not. They are not stupid. They respect the rules.
These guys make millions of dollars and they can't follow one rule even if arguably its not the most sensible rule. This goes back to their immature coach. Shit rolls downhill and if they see this guy pouting and whining, then young stupid players (amare) are going to act just like their coach.

THERE IS NO CHERRY PICKING with this particular rule. And the suns becoming "Americas team" makes perfect sense. This country is so dumbed down, stupidity does get rewarded in other instances so they have potential to be Americas team for that reason alone.

I applaud David Stern for upholding the STANDARD. Whether you believe the rule is bad or not, it is in place. If it were the other way around. We all know that phoenix would have probably held a protest and not play to get the proper punishment handed down. But that did not happen did it, the Spurs are not idiots, the suns are.

Well, I'm taking off soon. Feel free to use this quote when talking to the apologists:


Don't leave the bench during an altercation.

Quote:

---

So, essentially, the rules are really only guidelines and don't really mean what they say because the chances of a single team are more important than giving meaning to the express language of the rules?

---

I think that this reasonable concern can be ameloriated by giving teams the option to roll the penalty to the following regular season but at the cost of more games to sit and more money in fines. So Piatkowski and Banks can sit tonite because they are not essential to their team's success, whereas Amare and Diaw can go lighter in the pocket. And missing an eighth of their games is indeed a stiff penalty when it comes to playoff seedings.

Example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Don't leave the bench during an altercation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

They didn't violate the spirit of the law, but they DID violate the letter. So punish them next year for those screaming about "rules."

---

Define spirit vs letter. If they throw a punch? If the level of hostility is elevated so someone else throws a punch? How about a rule that when enforced considerably lowers the potential for a very ugly incident to occur. That sounds like a pretty good "spirit" of the law to me. Once the incident happens it's to late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

How is rolling over and increasing the punishment in the 07/08 season not holding them accountable for their actions? Why the rush and let THIS decide a playoff series? Of course there are different rules for different players. TNT and ABC are not ponying up lots of money so we can see Pat Burke and Sean Marks get major burn.

---

Psychological studies have conclusively proven that withholding punishment for behavior results in, at minimum, a lack of decrease in the behavior, and the potential for escalation of said behavior. This pattern has been shown in animals as well as humans. Our brains are wired as such that if a deterrent or punishment is not immediately applied to a situation, it is not associated with the infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

I favor letting a championship get decided on the court. There should be flexibility in determing when to mete out the punishment. If teams want to serve it immediately, it's a game and a $35K fine. If not, then they can sit out more games and lose more money next year.

---

1 thing I continue not to get from your argument is why was Amare and Diaw actively breaking the rule while they were on the court not part of the game?
Emotional control IS part of the game, and if they do not have the self-restraint to follow the rule, they suffer the consequences.

And to answer your earlier question, if Duncan, Ginobili and Parker did the same, they should be suspended, no questions asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

Define spirit vs letter. If they throw a punch? If the level of hostility is elevated so someone else throws a punch? How about a rule that when enforced considerably lowers the potential for a very ugly incident to occur. That sounds like a pretty good "spirit" of the law to me. Once the incident happens it's to late.

---

Why can't they be punished next year in the form of more games to sit and more money in fines? Isn't that the best of both worlds?

How is the leave the bench rule the only one subject to zero tolerance? Everything else is subject to some discretion. If a player charges into the stands after a fan, he might get 11 games (Vernon Maxwell), 73 (Ron Artest), or only 6 (DJ Mbenga). If a player punches somebody, he might get 15 games (Carmelo Anthony), or he might get more or less. Every situation is unique and takes place within its own context. Why can't there be a judgement call in this type of situation? There's also supposed to be a zero tolerance policy for post-whistle complaining, but players bitch and moan about fouls (and non-fouls) ALL THE TIME. NBA officials have always been able to pick and choose how and when they enforce the rules.

"Zero tolerance" rules are designed by people in positions of power who want to absolve themselves of the need to use logic or wisdom. There's certainly a tiny kernel of internal logic in going by the letter of the law, but there's no wisdom in so decisively swinging the series to San Antonio.