Does anything think the Rule will / should be Changed?

I don't understand why people outside of the Suns homers think the bench rule should be changed. It's a rule that has been effective for 10+ years, has helped clean up the NBA during scuffles, and hasn't been violated in the playoffs in how long? Doesn't that say that most players, even the really dumb ones, are smart enough to at least follow this rule? Is there anything wrong with expecting grown men to keep their heads, keep their cool, and stay near their bench? So basically the rule will probably be revisited because two players of importance to their team broke it. Stupidity at it's highest level.


Imagine if this kind of thinking crosses the NBA lines and entered into society. What? Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving? No, he's too important to the movie industry, we must change the law to allow people to drive drunk. That's a stupid law.

Really... think about it.

no, it hasn't been changed in 10 years why would they do it now? although i'm sure pussyhurt sarver will be campaigning like a champ

I think the rule will likely be amended to include provisions giving the League some leeway other than just giving suspensions outright. It depends how serious the owners are about doing it. My guess is that after all the heat Stern has gotten he will seek to have it changed this summer.

I expect the fury to die down. Rudy T will explain why the rule is out there, they'll show what Kermit Washington did to him and that will be it. Everyone that wanted Stern to ignore the rule just to help the Suns win will be ashamed of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I expect the fury to die down. Rudy T will explain why the rule is out there, they'll show what Kermit Washington did to him and that will be it. Everyone that wanted Stern to ignore the rule just to help the Suns win will be ashamed of themselves.

---

:lol I doubt a lot of people even know who ol Kermit is.
No need to change the rule because two idiots couldnt control themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

I think the rule will likely be amended to include provisions giving the League some leeway other than just giving suspensions outright. It depends how serious the owners are about doing it. My guess is that after all the heat Stern has gotten he will seek to have it changed this summer.

---

Stern won every single discussion about this issue because the rule is so cut and dry. He won't be pushing to have it changed.

I don't know how it could be realistically changed except for painting a new "instinctive reaction" boundary on the court.

But seriously. The rule does its job. It's good that the league didn't make an exception for a star player.

once this series is over it will be forgotten.

stern said if the owners want to change it, he is open to discussion. they're not gonna change it to say a star can't be suspended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by violentkitten

once this series is over it will be forgotten.

---

I expect a group of suns fans to have "never forget" shirts printed up. No sense of perspective, that crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Stern won every single discussion about this issue because the rule is so cut and dry. He won't be pushing to have it changed.

---

Yes but Stern does not want to have to go out and explain a ruling during the middle of the playoffs. Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time. Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

stern said if the owners want to change it, he is open to discussion. they're not gonna change it to say a star can't be suspended.

---

There isn't going to be an owner in this league that says that he puts a win or a loss above protecting the safety of the players and fans and the image of the league. Sarver is going to bellyache about it, but I bet even he backs off it when it comes down to it. I give people too much credit for common sense, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

Yes but Stern does not want to have to go out and explain a ruling during the middle of the playoffs. Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time. Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.

---

stern hasn't had to spin anything. the rule is self explanatory.

It might but I don't know that it should, once you add ambiguity to the rule, it looses it's effectiveness.

Another thing that I don't think is stressed enough is that the rule wasn't put in place to keep people from fighting on court, it was put in place to keep everyone off the court. Some of these commentators and writers think that if you go on the court but don't fight it's ok, the rule was intended to stop exactly that, they don't want anyone on the court for a myriad of reasons.

Stern will laugh and tell Sarver to put seatbelts with childproof latches on his players chairs if he can't control them.

Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

Yes but Stern does not want to have to go out and explain a ruling during the middle of the playoffs. Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time. Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.

---

It wasn't a bad decision. There was no judgment to be made, no grey area, no question of what the right thing to do was and no spin was necessary. The furor over it is caused by people that have an agenda of the Suns winning at all costs. The NBA doesn't play that way and proved it by siding with the rules. There are writers who are accusing the league of racism to try to make this decision look like it was anything other than what it was: a fair, cool-headed, even-handed application of a very clear rule that two players broke because they are stooooooopid.

I think it should be changed.

yes i think it should be changed. it should say that if you step onto the basketbal court, within the lines with both feet in the event of a fight, you are suspended 1 game. period.

or draw a box or lines that designate the "bench area" and say the same thing. it should be clear and defined lines. You are either "off sides" or you are not.

don't give me this crap about "vicinity" or "in the area" give me defined lines just like they did with the lane for the "no charge" area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

Yes but Stern does not want to have to go out and explain a ruling during the middle of the playoffs.

---

Then why did he go out and destroy anyone who questioned him? I say he rather enjoyed it.

Quote:

---

Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time.

---

Nah, avoiding fights is still a priority and my guess is Amare and Boris will avoid leaving the bench area like they should have done in the first place.

Quote:

---

Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.

---

Yes, everyone knows Amare and Boris made a bad decision, no matter how much whining bitches try to spin it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PM5K

It might but I don't know that it should, once you add ambiguity to the rule, it looses it's effectiveness.

Another thing that I don't think is stressed enough is that the rule wasn't put in place to keep people from fighting on court, it was put in place to keep everyone off the court. Some of these commentators and writers think that if you go on the court but don't fight it's ok, the rule was intended to stop exactly that, they don't want anyone on the court for a myriad of reasons.

---

The officials and coaches can break up a fight on the court if there are only ten players max to have to contend with. One of the officials had to turn away from separating Nash and Horry to tell Amare to get back to the bench. If Horry had cracked Nash's head open during that moment it would be very clear why Amare should have stayed put.

The rule is so clear it's stupid that so many people can't understand it.

The rule is fine, and it's there for a reason. There is no need for players on the bench to get up and help their teammates. There are 5 of them on the court, and 3 refs. The whole purpose is to avoid brawls with 30 players on the court. Once you blur the line of what's acceptable and what's not, players will start coming out onto the court again. Whether or not they get involved isn't the issue...their presence escalates the situation. You can be sure that neither Amare nor Boris will leave their bench again (well, at least Boris won't. Amare might not think quickly enough). Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then why did he go out and destroy anyone who questioned him. I say he rather enjoyed it.

---

He straight up owned Dan Patrick yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

yes i think it should be changed. it should say that if you step onto the basketbal court, within the lines with both feet in the event of a fight, you are suspended 1 game. period.

or draw a box or lines that designate the "bench area" and say the same thing. it should be clear and defined lines. You are either "off sides" or you are not.

don't give me this crap about "vicinity" or "in the area" give me defined lines just like they did with the lane for the "no charge" area.

---

They did do that -- it's called the sideline -- and people whined.

They should do like the NFL, give out a mandatory fine and suspensions based on actions once they are on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

yes i think it should be changed. it should say that if you step onto the basketbal court, within the lines with both feet in the event of a fight, you are suspended 1 game. period.

or draw a box or lines that designate the "bench area" and say the same thing. it should be clear and defined lines. You are either "off sides" or you are not.

don't give me this crap about "vicinity" or "in the area" give me defined lines just like they did with the lane for the "no charge" area.

---

Let me explain the "in the vicinity" language. Patrick Ewing was suspended because his toes strayed onto the court during an altercation, even though he never at any time made any motion towards the action on the floor, he simply stood up off his chair and has big fucking feet. The league thought it fair to suspend him according to the letter of the law, and amend the rule later to account for guys with big feet or someone who was standing an inch over the edge line.

Amare ran around his coaches and teammates and ran toward Horry. He was out of the coach's box before one of the officials turned around and told him to go back. There is zero comparison between that and what Ewing did.

If you are going to change the rule so that it allows for a 6'10" guy who has been complaining about how dirty the other team is to run onto the floor toward the altercation and require a referee to have to stop him then you might just as well abandon the rule altogether.

So the rule says you get a mandatory suspension for stepping one foot on the court regardless of intentions, but if you take someone's head off you may not get a suspension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Booyah30

They should do like the NFL, give out a mandatory fine and suspensions based on actions once they are on the court.

---

:wtf

The rule is ironclad and that's the only way it will work. Ambiguity makes for more discontent and controversy. It won't change. Cuban has gone on record that he'd vote against a change and he's gotten this right. Owners have hundreds of millions tied up in this product and they don't want to encourage some 80 IQ numbskull like Amare to screw up their investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Borosai

The rule is fine, and it's there for a reason. There is no need for players on the bench to get up and help their teammates. There are 5 of them on the court, and 3 refs. The whole purpose is to avoid brawls with 30 players on the court. Once you blur the line of what's acceptable and what's not, players will start coming out onto the court again. Whether or not they get involved isn't the issue...their presence escalates the situation. You can be sure that neither Amare nor Boris will leave their bench again (well, at least Boris won't. Amare might not think quickly enough). Problem solved.

---

Exactly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Booyah30

So the rule says you get a mandatory suspension for stepping one foot on the court regardless of intentions, but if you take someone's head off you may not get a suspension.

---

Whose head got taken off? Really, the way you guys characterize a hip check to try to make it more dramatic is just a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Booyah30

So the rule says you get a mandatory suspension for stepping one foot on the court regardless of intentions, but if you take someone's head off you may not get a suspension.

---

Actually the rule says nothing of the sort.

And there is no specific rule for decapitation. I can't think of one written for any sport.

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by picnroll

The rule is ironclad and that's the only way it will work. Ambiguity makes for more discontent and controversy. It won't change. Cuban has gone on record that he'd vote against a change and he's gotten this right. Owners have hundreds of millions tied up in this product and they don't want to encourage some 80 IQ numbskull like Amare to screw up their investment.

---

He says that now but I can totally see Cuban having a fit if Dirk gets suspended for the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

He says that now but I can totally see Cuban having a fit if Dirk gets suspended for the same thing.

---

Just like you can see intent of all basketball players on tv.

I think it should be changed to allow for reaction as long as the bench player does not approach or interact with opposing players during the altercation.

Aka, they should be allowed to check on their own players as long as they keep out of the way and don't escalate it.

If anything, the rule won't be changed, but will leave more room for interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fyatuk

I think it should be changed to allow for reaction as long as the bench player does not approach or interact with opposing players during the altercation.

Aka, they should be allowed to check on their own players as long as they keep out of the way and don't escalate it.

---

That makes absolutely no sense. Having bench players rush the court escalates the situation by itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fyatuk

I think it should be changed to allow for reaction as long as the bench player does not approach or interact with opposing players during the altercation.

Aka, they should be allowed to check on their own players as long as they keep out of the way and don't escalate it.

---

That's why teams have trainers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

He says that now but I can totally see Cuban having a fit if Dirk gets suspended for the same thing.

---

Dirk isnt an idiot so I doubt we would see that. Bottom line is that if this suspension had come down on the last 2 guys on the bench, no one would care and the media would say it was justified being "the rule". But since 2 key guys did it, its "unfair".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

He says that now but I can totally see Cuban having a fit if Dirk gets suspended for the same thing.

---

Dirk isn't stupid enough to run onto the court. Maybe Shithouse. What surprises me is Diaw. I didn't think he was that stupid. Amare I would have bet big money that dimwit would run out. Do nothing, fugazzi-style, but still run out.

I think it should be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fyatuk

I think it should be changed to allow for reaction as long as the bench player does not approach or interact with opposing players during the altercation.

Aka, they should be allowed to check on their own players as long as they keep out of the way and don't escalate it.

---

They escalate it simply with their presence. There are only three officials, usually old white men and ten players, usually gigantic, testosterone fueled athletes in their twenties. Simply introducing 14 more gigantic, testosterone fueled athletes to what is an emotional situation just makes the job of breaking it up that much harder. Stay where you are. That's the rule. An NBA player in the middle of an altercation doesn't need guys from the other team running at him to calm him down.

BTW, Does anyone have video of when Rudy T decided to play peacemaker?

I swear, some of you guys must never have been in a fight.

Changed to what?

I think there should be a pen full of those plastic balls that kids play in so guys like Amare can jump into them and writhe around and throw a tantrum until he is no longer driven by "instinct" that the great majority of his teammates simply don't seem to have.

Who's with me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

They escalate it simply with their presence. There are only three officials, usually old white men and ten players, usually gigantic, testosterone fueled athletes in their twenties. Simply introducing 14 more gigantic, testosterone fueled athletes to what is an emotional situation just makes the job of breaking it up that much harder. Stay where you are. That's the rule. An NBA player in the middle of an altercation doesn't need guys from the other team running at him to calm him down.

BTW, Does anyone have video of when Rudy T decided to play peacemaker?

I swear, some of you guys must never have been in a fight.

---

there'd be nothing more tempting in a playoff series than to allow players to come off the bench and ambush another team's star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Changed to what?

I think there should be a pen full of those plastic balls that kids play in so guys like Amare can jump into them and writhe around and throw a tantrum until he is no longer driven by "instinct" that the great majority of his teammates simply don't seem to have.

Who's with me?

---

I'm more for putting Amare in restraints on the sideline, maybe a straight jacket and a muzzle. Take them off when he goes in the game.

Maybe the Suns' staff should use these:

http://www.tommiguard.com/images/FBasic_Navy.jpg

I'm gonna have to GIMP some images now. Good ideas ChumpDumper. :lol

new Phoenix bench seat

http://www.healthacres.com/childheal...1.mzzzzzzz.jpg

Here's a double so Amare and Boris can be photoshopped onto them.

http://www.survivingtwins.com/wp-con...oads/leash.jpg

I think what sucks about the rule is that it's a player's natural reaction to get up when you see a teammate get a hard foul. Like Duncan reacting to Elson falling in game 4, you may just want to see if they're ok.


Just imagine if an altercation had started just at that moment?


Also, imagine if you step on the court (for whatever reason) and a fight breaks out on the complete opposite corner of the court. By the letter of the law, you'd have to be suspended, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO.


I don't know what the right answer is, but the current rule sucks, IMO.

Quote:

---

I think what sucks about the rule is that it's a player's natural reaction to get up when you see a teammate get a hard foul. Like Duncan reacting to Elson falling in game 4, you may just want to see if they're ok.

---

There is no penalty for standing up.

Quote:

---

Just imagine if an altercation had started just at that moment?

---

They'd be suspended. Rightly so. The Spurs know the rules as well as Amare and Boris.

Quote:

---

Also, imagine if you step on the court (for whatever reason) and a fight breaks out on the complete opposite corner of the court. By the letter of the law, you'd have to be suspended

---

False.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I think what sucks about the rule is that it's a player's natural reaction to get up when you see a teammate get a hard foul. Like Duncan reacting to Elson falling in game 4, you may just want to see if they're ok.


Just imagine if an altercation had started just at that moment?


Also, imagine if you step on the court (for whatever reason) and a fight breaks out on the complete opposite corner of the court. By the letter of the law, you'd have to be suspended, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO.


I don't know what the right answer is, but the current rule sucks, IMO.

---

Ask yourself how many players in recent history have been suspended because of this rule? Then ask yourself if the players that were suspended might have been a deterent for the next guy that thought about running on to the court to start some shit. Just because two idiots couldnt follow the rules doesnt make it a bad rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Changed to what?

I think there should be a pen full of those plastic balls that kids play in so guys like Amare can jump into them and writhe around and throw a tantrum until he is no longer driven by "instinct" that the great majority of his teammates simply don't seem to have.

Who's with me?

---

i agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I think what sucks about the rule is that it's a player's natural reaction to get up when you see a teammate get a hard foul. Like Duncan reacting to Elson falling in game 4, you may just want to see if they're ok.

---

And if Diaw and Amare had just gotten up, they would have played last night. Every other member of the Suns and Spurs got up and managed not to run onto the court toward the action.

Do you remember when DA was laid out by Juwan Howard? That was as hard a foul as I've ever seen. Nobody from the Spurs left the bench. Not because they didn't want to see if DA was okay, but because they knew they'd be suspended for game 2 if they did.

I think that they'll change it. What happened to Rudy was horrible no doubt, but the rule wasn't enacted because of him; the NBA wanted to help their image by stopping fighting.

Personally, I think that they should change the wording to, "any player who escalates an altercation shall receive due punishment from the league." That makes sense to me. For example, as another poster already pointed out, what if a player gets up to check on a teammate and no altercation has started, but then a fight breaks out after they're on the floor? As long as a player does nothing to aid to the fight then the league should err on the side of no harm no foul.

Ok, so if the league decides running from the bench 20 feet in the direction of an altercation is an escalation, Amare still gets suspended.

Brilliant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Ok, so if the league decides running from the bench 20 feet in the direction of an altercation is an escalation, Amare still gets suspended.

Brilliant!

---

They'd be incorrect because it didn't escalate the fight... evidenced by the fact that the fight was not escalated and broken up. Plus they would've never been able to suspend Diaw under that rule.

Quote:

---

They'd be incorrect because it didn't escalate the fight.

---

Says who?

You?

You just left it up to the league.

Again.

Congratulations.

Quote:

---

He says that now but I can totally see Cuban having a fit if Dirk gets suspended for the same thing.

---

I would believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

I think that they'll change it. What happened to Rudy was horrible no doubt, but the rule wasn't enacted because of him; the NBA wanted to help their image by stopping fighting.

Personally, I think that they should change the wording to, "any player who escalates an altercation shall receive due punishment from the league." That makes sense to me. For example, as another poster already pointed out, what if a player gets up to check on a teammate and no altercation has started, but then a fight breaks out after they're on the floor? As long as a player does nothing to aid to the fight then the league should err on the side of no harm no foul.

---

It's not the players job description to check on an injured player. Thats what coaches and trainers are for...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

It's not the players job description to check on an injured player. Thats what coaches and trainers are for...

---

So? I don't want robotic players, and I'm fine if they show some emotion. If they don't harm anything or anybody then why punish them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

So? I don't want robotic players, and I'm fine if they show some emotion. If they don't harm anything or anybody then why punish them?

---

If there is a simple rule designed to protect their safety and livelihood, why can't they just follow it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If there is a simple rule designed to protect their safety and livelihood, why can't they just follow it?

---

No fucking shit, everyone is acting like the rule is ridiculous and over the top when its probably the easiest rule to follow ever.

leave it alone
everyone now knows what it is
suns are another example of what not to do
if you break the law and you are a star even you will get kicked out of the next game
simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

So? I don't want robotic players, and I'm fine if they show some emotion. If they don't harm anything or anybody then why punish them?

---

Uhhh...have you ever listened to some of these guys? They may be incredibly gifted athletes but some aren't exactly the brightest bulb on the strand. Thats why the NBA has rules that try to reduce any possibility of bench clearing brawls breaking out on the floor. The easiest and simplest way to accomplish this is to have one simple rule (easy enough for a caveman to understand) that you don't leave the bench during an altercation.

pretty easy rule, huh? easy to understand, easy to enforce. no room for misunderstanding.

why are we still talking about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If there is a simple rule designed to protect their safety and livelihood, why can't they just follow it?

---

Because sometimes it lends itself to situations when people are punished without causing any problems. IMO it's much easier to have a rule that punishes players when they actually do something wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Because sometimes it lends itself to situations when people are punished without causing any problems. IMO it's much easier to have a rule that punishes players when they actually do something wrong.

---

Actually, it's much easier to keep the rule as unambiguous as possible and have the players simply adhere to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Actually, it's much easier to keep the rule as unambiguous as possible and have the players simply adhere to it.

---

So, for example, when Duncan and Bowen were on the floor, if Jones threw a punch then you would agree with that suspension? That's ludicrous. Hell if you really want to stop fights just ban people for life for the NBA if they throw a punch. That would cut that shit out quickly. The problem is that it would be grossly unfair. Kind of like the rule is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

So, for example, when Duncan and Bowen were on the floor, if Jones threw a punch then you would agree with that suspension? That's ludicrous. Hell if you really want to stop fights just ban people for life for the NBA if they throw a punch. That would cut that shit out quickly. The problem is that it would be grossly unfair. Kind of like the rule is right now.

---

Yes, because that is the rule. I would think it sucked, but you accept that those are the rules, regardless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldDirtMcGirt

Because sometimes it lends itself to situations when people are punished without causing any problems. IMO it's much easier to have a rule that punishes players when they actually do something wrong.

---

Amare distracted the officials who were trying to keep the players separated. What if someone had taken Steve Nash out at that point? Would you still think that Amare wasn't "causing any problems"? Or would you blame someone else again? There are rules for a reason. Everyone knew them. The Spurs knew them. Every other team that's had players suspended had to pay the price. So does your team. If you don't like that, go root for a different sport, but make sure to root for the most popular team because they are going to bend the rules to make sure the most popular team wins, and that's apparently what you want.

Right?

Quote:

---

So, for example, when Duncan and Bowen were on the floor, if Jones threw a punch then you would agree with that suspension?

---

If they were away from the bench area, yes.

Quote:

---

That's ludicrous.

---

Not at all. For $15 million I'll stand where I'm told, especially when four of my other teammates, my trainers and coaches are already or can be on the floor with no problem.

Quote:

---

Hell if you really want to stop fights just ban people for life for the NBA if they throw a punch. That would cut that shit out quickly. The problem is that it would be grossly unfair. Kind of like the rule is right now.

---

Nah, it's fair. Stay near the bench, and you have no problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amare_32

I think the rule will likely be amended to include provisions giving the League some leeway other than just giving suspensions outright. It depends how serious the owners are about doing it. My guess is that after all the heat Stern has gotten he will seek to have it changed this summer.

---

You obviously don't know David Stern. Heat? I'm sure he sees this as a change from 32 degrees F to 33.

They won't change the rule because they want the players TO STAY THE FUCK ON THE BENCH. How do you impress that upon them? Suspensions. Anyone who had to witness continuous bench clearing brawls between MIA and the NYK in the day cheered Stern for this.