David Stern on the Dan Patrick show today 5/16

Quote:

---

Doesn't matter. Amare was intending to do "something" but he was restrained and never made it out there.

---

After leaving the bench area.

Quote:

---

The league can't assume that his intent was hostile any more than it can assume it was to be a peace maker or just see what had happened to Nash.

---

Exactly, that's why he's supended.

Quote:

---

The player should be assumed to be a non-participant until he actually participates.

---

Leaving the bench area is participating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

Stern said otherwise. He said the rule is automatic with the suspension.

---

Go read the rule. There is already enough leeway for "a reaction."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Candygram?

---

OMG I'm still laughing.
You must be as old as I am to quote that!
Good times! :spin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadDog73

Of course most Spurs fans would be decrying the decision if the situation was reverse...

and most Suns fans would be supporting it.

Again, that would not change the fact: Stern runs the NBA tight. As basketball fans, we have to deal.

---

Actually, most people on here were fully expecting Duncan to be suspended for one game following his incident and statements about Joey Crawford .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monosylab1k

If he's bitch-slapping Dan Patrick, then he's my hero.

Stern may be a dick, but he just got done handing the biggest dick in sports journalism his ass on a platter. Go Stern.

---

Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?

Because that was great, too. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?

Because that was great, too. :lol

---

I think that was Jim Gray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

No it needs to be applied with more common sense. These players are not robots. They saw thier point guard go down with a cheapshot. At the very least the rule should allow for them to show some reaction. If they compose themselves and get back to the bench let it be.

---

But, as Stern said, the point of the rule -- as it currently exists -- is to make sure that there are no grey areas. If a player is on the floor engaged in an altercation and sees a guy in another jersey come towards him, he: (1) doesn't know if that guy was on the floor before the incident or not; and (2) might be inclined to Tomjanovich the guy, which is likely to only exacerbate an already bad situation.

The best way to avoid aggravation is to keep everyone on or near the bench. The league's owners decided, when they made the rule, that there should be no grey area when it came to punishment. Break the rule and you're suspended. Now that Suns fans (and the national media that adores them) are realizing what the effects of the rule are, there's a sudden clamor to change the rule. That's fine, if the owners think it's reasonable. But for now, the rule is the rule is the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monosylab1k

LMAO what will happen on this board if the Suns actually win tonight?

---

Spurs fans know this series is far from over, lay off the crack pipe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47

You just happened to choose Duncan and Bowen?

---

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThomasGranger

So, you don't have a problem with the way the rule was enforced, but you're in favor of amending the rule so that there is more room for interpretation, more subjectivity, correct?

---

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

dan patrick is a fucking dumbass. way to go stern...

:elephant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DePastino

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

---

you're grasping at straws dude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DePastino

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

---

I agree with that. But I also agree with Stu Jackson's contention this morning that 20-25 feet from the bench is not within the vicinity of the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DePastino

Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.

As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?

---

His incentive to back off is the possibility of even harsher penalties. The Artest precedent still looms and I don't think it's inconceivable that the league would impose that sort of a penalty upon a player who leaves the bench and starts throwing punches at guys in opposing jerseys. It might not be 73 games, but I'd think that doing what you propose would result in substantially more than a 1 game suspension. And I think one way to be sure that there isn't any concern for that is consistently applying a one-game suspension for leaving the bench, without any wiggle room to consider other circumstances. It's generally a better thing, I think, to keep players out of altercations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.

---

I'm saying that once search is re-activated, go find our threads about Joey Crawford.

I'll give it to you that a lot of Spurs fans would knee-jerk and do that, but not all of them.

Believe it or not, there are a number of intelligent Spurs fans on this board

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DePastino

Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?

That phrase by itself is ambiguous.

---

The only way to be less ambiguous is to paint more lines on the floor. Or go back to the original rule. Do you really want that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mabber

It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.

I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.

---

Being upset about it, and putting the blame on the opposition is two different things. Which seems to be the stances of most of the national media, and most Sun's fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47

I think that was Jim Gray.

---

Ahhh ... they are all starting to look alike to me. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47

I'm saying that once search is re-activated, go find our threads about Joey Crawford.

I'll give it to you that a lot of Spurs fans would knee-jerk and do that, but not all of them.

Believe it or not, there are a number of intelligent Spurs fans on this board

---

I didn't say all of them but I think most would. I agree that there are many intelligent Spurs fans on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by judaspriestess

you're grasping at straws dude

---

Am I?

It amazes me how many of you are so adamantly defending the rule to the death. There doesn't have to be a "right" and a "wrong". IMO, the rule should be changed.

Clearly, I'm not alone here. Others feel as I do.

And as far as "why now", it just happens to be a very relevant topic in light of recent events. Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.

Quote:

---

Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.

---

In its amended form, it's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monosylab1k

It would be a whole lot easier for coaches to make sure their players are smart enough to obey the rule as written than it would be to try and rewrite the rule into some nebulous mess.

---

What he said . . . and he is a Dallas fan :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4lifecowboy

Being upset about it, and putting the blame on the opposition is two different things. Which seems to be the stances of most of the national media, and most Sun's fans.

---

That just goes with the territory.

I'm just not buying anyone that thinks the rule (as written) is fair. I understand and agree that the suspensions should have taken place with the way the rule is currently written.

I just heard a robert horry quote on the ticket where he said that the only reason he got suspended two games was because he hard fouled steve nash, he said he was the poster boy of the NBA. Damn rob is getting awnry in his old age.

I know the above post was random but i did not want to start a new thread about what horry said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47

Did you mention that as he was presenting Dirk his MVP trophy?

---

we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...

still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWE

fire david stern...the only people still protecting this "rule" are spurs fans...not all...but the only ones. And they are supporting it for the obvious reason, to help them win the game.

change is needed...and needed soon