Reply With Quote
I'm not a lawyer, but no rule that Stern imposes is a law. Spurs would seem to a cause for legal action, but not on that basis.
If you're saying he'd "surely end up in court for it," are you implying that he'd lose? And if so, how can you say the rule "doesn't apply to the NBA?"
If Stern ends up in court and loses (hypothetically), then clearly the uncons utionality of ex-post facto laws do apply to the NBA.
Unless of course you weren't necessarily implying that Stern would lose such a case...
I'm not a lawyer, but no rule that Stern imposes is a law. Spurs would seem to a cause for legal action, but not on that basis.
If Stern's smart, he'll massage this another angle. He should say that healthy players can't be sent straight home. Instead, healthy players have to at least show up to the arena. Fine the Spurs $10K and threaten a bigger fine if the Spurs do it again.
Stern saves face. The Spurs don't really care. This can all go away.
Dude...the Cons ution only applies to actual laws passed by Congress or state legislatures. The rules of the NBA, a private organization, are not governed by the Cons ution. That said, you are correct about trying to punish Pop for something that was not against the rules when he did it, even though that type of activity was later made to be a violation of the rules. The Spurs would sue the outta the NBA in court and win easily, and Stern would have egg on his face.
Mike Taylor compared this situation to something, and I think it's pretty damn close..lol...rally cry.
Ah, this is a good point. You're right, there's probably a very specific definition for "law" with regards to the uncons utionality of ex-post facto "laws." Man, I'm glad I didn't go into law tbh
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
I assume a change on the way the IR list works, e.g. a player who doesn't suit up for a game forfeits the next 2 games as well, would require a change in the CBA? Or can Stern unilaterally change that?
1) I don't think Pop could sue anyone. He probably has an arbitration clause in his contract.
2) There would be no "law" Stern would be imposing. "Law" is a specific term that doesn't apply to anything Stern would be doing, it's a legislative term. It's likely in Pop's contract that he has to accept the fine or go to arbitration for something like this.
3) There's already precedent for fining Pop with the Pat Riley deal in 1990.
So Stern couldn't lose under the uncons utionality of "ex-post facto laws." I get that.
But under what premise would the Spurs "win easily?" Why are you so certain that the Spurs would win given that the uncons utionality of ex-post facto laws doesn't apply (because rules within the NBA aren't "laws" governed by the Cons ution, as you said)?
All this time I've been assuming that ex-post facto would be relevant to this case, but you and others have indicated that it's not.
With ex-post facto irrelevant, why are you still so certain that the Spurs would win?
The rules of the NBA are part of a contract between the NBA and the coaches/players/etc. For the NBA to punish Pop and/or the Spurs for something that was not prohibited by the rules at the time the activity in question took place is a clear breach of that contract, and is actionable in civil court.
I agree in seeing Stern promise some rule change at the end of the season, voicing his 'stern' displeasure, and fine the team something like that $10,000. I also doubt the team actually pays it - because the league office won't actually expect it paid, given the cans of beans this opens up.
Magic 8 Ball says Stern will be doing some major fudging and backpedaling with regards to his "substantial sanctions" remark.
Would have to go to Board of Governors for the league for a vote, Holt would probably have to abstain from voting on the issue, but as Chairman I am sure he wields exceptional influence on other owners. If players were to be affected, the Players Association would have to go through a similar rule of order. Oh yeah, fukyocommishclown
I predict even though they have no good argument, they will suspend Pop for "conduct detrimental to the league" or some other vague bull .
Ok that's the part that I was unaware of and was asking about. So you're saying there's already an ex-post facto provision within in the rules and contracts of the NBA. Thanks for clearing that up.
You could've said that from the start though, tbh
That was going to happen anyway if you face the Grizzlies regardless of whether Pop did what he did.... Grizzlies are one of the most sickeningly ref-coddled teams in the league....
The fact that 3 perfectly healthy players did not even show up for the game is what sent it over the top. I would think that maybe the league could somehow keep those players from getting paid for that game because they had no legitimate reason not to be there. But of course I have no idea exactly what it says in their player contracts.
Stern will make a push to rewrite rules for next season, will deflect any liability by explaining that "sanctions were forthcoming" for the entire league in the future and not for retroactive decisions made by the Spurs. Just watch.
No, it's not any type of ex-post facto provision at all. Such things do not exist in contracts. It's actionable because it is a fundamental breach of contract. We're talking contract law here, not Cons utional law.Ok that's the part that I was unaware of and was asking about. So you're saying there's already an ex-post facto provision within in the rules and contracts of the NBA. Thanks for clearing that up.
You could've said that from the start though, tbh
The Spurs, the Heat, and the Celtics all did the same thing last season with no action from the league. Stern will be hard pressed to explain why this case requires action when previous examples did not.
Where you seem to be really confused is the team advised them not to show up - it was not the players making the decision.
No justification, its not a contractual decision between players, it is a decision made by the coaching staff who is also an executive in the Spurs organization. Pop wields more power than the average coach as he is also part of the decisions of the entire group. It is all speculation, but at this point and after that performance from our bench, Stern will have a tough task finding precedence to sanction Pop or the team. I am glad our guys didn;t go down like the Bobcats did the other night. To come into this game as 6pt underdogs in vegas and lose by only 5 with our third string, it is a major moral victory. Not just from the game standpoint alone, but that the bench had the commish doubting them and still performed above expectations.
Sanctions should be handed out on the fact that the Heat got to the line more times in the last 4 mins than the previous 44mins.
a 10k fine dont mean to the spurs
hand it in pennies and fck him, throw it at the clown
What portion of what contract is being breached (just out of curiosity)?
NO! The players cannot be punished for this! They have to abide by the coach's decision. It's out of their hands. Stern can only punish Pop.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions