Originally Posted by JamStone
fair point. and, i actually agree with how the league responded to the events of game 4. my only point is that tim duncan was spared a suspension simply because two players who could have gotten into an altercation decided not to, while amare did get suspended because raja bell decided to stick up for his teammate in a confrontational manner.
your point is well taken. i believe though had amare stopped after those first two steps, he still would have gotten suspended SIMPLY because an altercation ensued. i don't know for a fact, but i believe it would have happened anyway.
stu jackson mentioned how tim duncan reacted in concern for his teammate. can't the same argument be made that amare reacted in concern for nash?
i just think that the suspensions are predicated too much based on whether an altercation occurred or not, without regard for the intentions of the players who move away from the bench area, when an altercation doesn't necessarily always occur.