Thunder: Durant MVP Presentation

[rogues]

Spurfan is without a doubt the most hypocritical fanbase to ever exist tbh. Tim complained/complains about foul calls all the time, he's got one of the top 5 all time "I've never committed a foul" faces. Tim's done the rip through (albeit not to the degree that KD did it.) Tim's gotten a championship handed to him by the refs. (Suns)

Yet if Tim had a press conference like this, the semen cloud upstairs would create the equivalent of a nuclear winter. " So inspiring and down to Earth " " Los Spurs Familia "

Damn, jimbo with the truth bombs..

[313]

Spurfan is without a doubt the most hypocritical fanbase to ever exist tbh. Tim complained/complains about foul calls all the time, he's got one of the top 5 all time "I've never committed a foul" faces. Tim's done the rip through (albeit not to the degree that KD did it.) Tim's gotten a championship handed to him by the refs. (Suns)

Yet if Tim had a press conference like this, the semen cloud upstairs would create the equivalent of a nuclear winter. " So inspiring and down to Earth " " Los Spurs Familia "

It seems like Tony and Manu take a lot of slack but Timmy is untouchable

[rogues]

It seems like Tony and Manu take a lot of slack but Timmy is untouchable

The Spurs are a likeable team, tbh..but just like every relevant team, they have some bad to them..the slack that Ginobili and Parker get is mainly due to nationalism..

[The Gemini Method]

Good usage of and semen clouds equating nuclear winter in this thread...the imagery cannot be forgotten.

[Budkin]

Great speech by KD tbh. He's a good guy, and genuine. He still gets way too many calls but that has nothing to do with this.

[lefty]

Even when it comes to being involved in the community, Durant is still a beta.

After the tornado, RW was the first OKC player to visit the tornado victims on the site.

And he was on crutches.



Durbeta is still a ing got

[Calispursfan11]

Not really. He's allowed himself to be caged with one however. He's in dire need of a cerebral point guard instead of that frog faced Mandingo he's paired with.

LOL "frog faced Mandingo"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And it's legendary... nary a defense attempted.

Oh off. I started discussing haplogroups and you ran away.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Spurfan is without a doubt the most hypocritical fanbase to ever exist tbh. Tim complained/complains about foul calls all the time, he's got one of the top 5 all time "I've never committed a foul" faces. Tim's done the rip through (albeit not to the degree that KD did it.) Tim's gotten a championship handed to him by the refs. (Suns)

Yet if Tim had a press conference like this, the semen cloud upstairs would create the equivalent of a nuclear winter. " So inspiring and down to Earth " " Los Spurs Familia "

How was it handed it to us? The rule on leaving the bench was clear and it was right in the aftermath of the fight at the Palace. That is like complaining about the Psitons championships because they got away with fouls in the 90s. Suns lost because Stoudemire is a mouthbreathing moron.

[Calispursfan11]

Great speech by KD tbh. He's a good guy, and genuine. He still gets way too many calls but that has nothing to do with this.

He comes off very genuine and humble. Definitely a winner.

[DMC]

Oh off. I started discussing haplogroups and you ran away.

I'm an renowned expert in genetics. You're not qualified to debate with me just because you play around with RF and harmonics.

[jimbo]

Damn, jimbo with the truth bombs..

Not really truth bombs tbh. This stuff has been known.

It seems like Tony and Manu take a lot of slack but Timmy is untouchable

I can't even explain it. He's the reason for all the championships and success, but I swear there's nothing he could do to make the fanbase dislike him. I guess it's because San Antonio has nothing else other than the Spurs?

How was it handed it to us? The rule on leaving the bench was clear and it was right in the aftermath of the fight at the Palace. That is like complaining about the Psitons championships because they got away with fouls in the 90s. Suns lost because Stoudemire is a mouthbreathing moron.

A malicious foul on your end resulted in the suspension of 2 of Phoenix's best players. That isn't fair. That isn't how the rules should work. It was, is, and forever will be a stupid rule. Suspend em the next season, don't let it determine the outcome of a playoff series unless you absolutely have to.

Besides, the rule isn't as black and white as you're saying it was. It wasn't "clear" by any means. There was plenty of room for argument in the definition of "altercation" and "immediate vicinity."

Duncan walked onto the court at one point after what the Suns argued was an "altercation" and he wasn't suspended.



The point is that rules are subjective and the Spurs have been at the beneficial end of em' plenty enough to not be all that pissed off about Thunderref .

[spurraider21]

Duncan walked onto the court at one point after what the Suns argued was an "altercation" and he wasn't suspended.

how could that possibly be described as an altercation

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really truth bombs tbh. This stuff has been known.



I can't even explain it. He's the reason for all the championships and success, but I swear there's nothing he could do to make the fanbase dislike him. I guess it's because San Antonio has nothing else other than the Spurs?



A malicious foul on your end resulted in the suspension of 2 of Phoenix's best players. That isn't fair. That isn't how the rules should work. It was, is, and forever will be a stupid rule. Suspend em the next season, don't let it determine the outcome of a playoff series unless you absolutely have to.

Besides, the rule isn't as black and white as you're saying it was. It wasn't "clear" by any means. There was plenty of room for argument in the definition of "altercation" and "immediate vicinity."

Duncan walked onto the court at one point after what the Suns argued was an "altercation" and he wasn't suspended.



The point is that rules are subjective and the Spurs have been at the beneficial end of em' plenty enough to not be all that pissed off about Thunderref .

Sorry but the Horry Hipcheck incident was clearly an altercation between two players and Diaw and Stoudemire walked way out onto the court. It was the same season as the Palace incident.

Showing a guy get upended on a dunk where the two men never confront each other is not even in the same zip code as Horry standing over Nash after shoving him into the scorers table while Nash is gushing blood out of his face.

You then conflate complaining about NBA office decisions and in the moment officiating by refs.

Do we need to bust out Big Bird?

[jimbo]

how could that possibly be described as an altercation

The NBA doesn't define altercation which means that you can argue the definition of the word. Ex: a verbal altercation could consist of one guy yelling at another. Look at the definition of altercation from Google. "a noisy argument or disagreement" I'm guessing any disagreement is going to be "noisy" in a loud stadium. Was there a disagreement there? Sure.

You could also argue about the intention of the rule and ignore the word "altercation" altogether in favor of a word that better suits your argument. Ex: If the intention was to keep fights from players from starting, then getting off the bench at all could be considered an act of aggression towards the opposing players.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm an renowned expert in genetics. You're not qualified to debate with me just because you play around with RF and harmonics.

Your google skills and ability to run away when faced with scrutiny are indeed legendary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NBA doesn't define altercation which means that you can argue the definition of the word. Ex: a verbal altercation could consist of one guy yelling at another. Look at the definition of altercation from Google. "a noisy argument or disagreement" I'm guessing any disagreement is going to be "noisy" in a loud stadium. Was there a disagreement there? Sure.

You could also argue about the intention of the rule and ignore the word "altercation" altogether in favor of a word that better suits your argument. Ex: If the intention was to keep fights from players from starting, then getting off the bench at all could be considered an act of aggression towards the opposing players.

The intent was to not have bench players join or create an altercation happening on the court.

al·ter·ca·tion
noun \ˌȯl-tər-ˈkā-shən\

: a noisy or angry argument


The two players in your example never even confronted each other. Stoudemire and Diaw went out to where Horry and Nash were to confront Horry. Nice sophistry though.

[jimbo]

Sorry but the Horry Hipcheck incident was clearly an altercation between two players and Diaw and Stoudemire walked way out onto the court. It was the same season as the Palace incident.

Showing a guy get upended on a dunk where the two men never confront each other is not even in the same zip code as Horry standing over Nash after shoving him into the scorers table while Nash is gushing blood out of his face.

You then conflate complaining about NBA office decisions and in the moment officiating by refs.

Do we need to bust out Big Bird?

The Pacers Pistons brawl was in 2004. The Horry hipcheck was in 2007.

And it isn't in the same zip code. The Horry foul was considerably worse. Where's the justice in rewarding someone who is intentionally breaking the rules of the game to gain an advantage? How does that fit in with the spirit of compe ive play?

If you want to go by the letter of the law, where does the NBA create a distinction in the level of severity in an "altercation?" They don't. It's entirely subjective. Most people thought it was a bad call, but the league didn't. The league was protecting you.

You then conflate complaining about NBA office decisions and in the moment officiating by refs.

They're all employees of Stern. We can call them that from now on if you'd like though.

[spurraider21]

Where's the justice in rewarding someone who is intentionally breaking the rules of the game to gain an advantage?

horry didn't get rewarded for anything, he was suspended for two games. its not as though he physically dragged those guys onto the court and got them suspended. when Bynum laid out Barea, it was an equally (if not more) dirty play, but you didn't see Dirk running onto the court and getting suspended

[jimbo]

The intent was to not have bench players join or create an altercation happening on the court.

al·ter·ca·tion
noun \ˌȯl-tər-ˈkā-shən\

: a noisy or angry argument


The two players in your example never even confronted each other. Stoudemire and Diaw went out to where Horry and Nash were to confront Horry. Nice sophistry though.

It really doesn't matter what you argue, the point is that it's a debatable issue and is therefore not "clear" as you stated. That's why I'm shotgunning out arguments. It doesn't matter if they're well constructed, just that they exist and they've got an ounce of merit.

The intent was to not have bench players join or create an altercation happening on the court.

That's just your thought. If the rule was made in terms of player safety, an expanded scope would better protect the players. Why would the league want to limit player safety by limiting the scope?

The two players in your example never even confronted each other.

It's like you said, all an altercation is is a noisy argument. The conditions for a suspension just say that there has to be AN altercation on the court and they have to leave the vicinity of the bench.

If you could point me to where there has to be a "confrontation" between the two, I'd appreciate it.

[jimbo]

horry didn't get rewarded for anything, he was suspended for two games. its not as though he physically dragged those guys onto the court and got them suspended. when Bynum laid out Barea, it was an equally (if not more) dirty play, but you didn't see Dirk running onto the court and getting suspended

His team clearly got rewarded with the result. He personally got rewarded through winning the series & collecting his easy ring.

The result allows for a morally objectionable situation. Your team can benefit from filling the end of the bench with enforcers. At worst, they get multiple hard fouls on the opposing team's superstars. At best, they get opposing team members suspended. If they get suspended, it doesn't matter-- they'd be in the D league anyways.

That's not the kind of situation the league should incentivize.

[spurraider21]

His team clearly got rewarded with the result. He personally got rewarded through winning the series & collecting his easy ring.

The result allows for a morally objectionable situation. Your team can benefit from filling the end of the bench with enforcers. At worst, they get multiple hard fouls on the opposing team's superstars. At best, they get opposing team members suspended. If they get suspended, it doesn't matter-- they'd be in the D league anyways.

That's not the kind of situation the league should incentivize.

Horry and the Spurs were punished for their actions. They are not responsible for Phoenix's actions

[jimbo]

Horry and the Spurs were punished for their actions. They are not responsible for Phoenix's actions

And the league has no obligation to punish Phoenix in a situation like this. Not with the way the rules were written. It was ethically wrong and bad for the game of basketball to suspend Amare/Diaw.

[FkLA]

I know being a spurfan thats anti-Spurs will get you props from all the cool, non-spurfan kids on ST but come on jimbo this is just ridiculous tbh.

[jimbo]

I know being a spurfan thats anti-Spurs will get you props from all the cool, non-spurfan kids on ST but come on jimbo this is just ridiculous tbh.

Yeah, most of what I'm writing is bull by design, but I really don't think they should suspend guys that don't hurt anyone. I'd rather see good basketball over anything else.