Does anything think the Rule will / should be Changed?

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.