True Hoop -- Finally a reasonable Objective Opinion.

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.