Describe the altercation in detail.
I told you what happened, now let's hear your made up story.
I just got done agreeing with you, man! Jones undercut Elson, causing him to hit the floor, but that wasn't an altercation. It certainly was not the reason Duncan got off the bench. It's more like when Horry gave Nash the forearm shiver.
Uh, wait...let me think about that some more.
Ok, thanks for agreeing with me. Now quit your whining.I just got done agreeing with you, man! Jones undercut Elson, causing him to hit the floor, but that wasn't an altercation.
No, they did step onto the court when they thought Elson was fouled. But there was no altercation. Elson thought Amare undercut him and so did the Spurs bench. Actually the smart one was Amare...he headed back up the court which is what he should have done while Elson was complaining to the ref. There is no rule against stepping onto the court when a foul is called. If Elson had gone after Amare instead of complaning to the ref and then Bowen and Duncan stepped on the court, suspensions would have been warranted and deserved.So Duncan and Bowen, for no explicit reason, wandered onto the court?
Seriously? Were they drunk?
My question still stands though.
Why do some (not all..I won't pull the all fans cards like a lot of ignorant fools do) Suns fans think their team is above the rules?
I know right? I mean, Raja Bell confronted Horry in both situations. It's practically a carbon copy incident.
Ah...but thats just what Amare and Boris did.
Except their dumbass teammate was trying to pick a fight with Horry.
but there was also an altercation involved...that is what makes it different.
My apologies, I should have been clearer.
There is no rule against stepping onto the court if a foul is called and nothing else happens.
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you think there was a dirty play against your teammate and the other team's starting a fight, and you run on to the court, doesn't mean there's an altercation. You shouldn't get suspended for that.
Uh, wait...let me think about that for a second.
If we must rehash this ad nauseum, can we please stop including Boris Diaw in the discussion, as though his absence had any measurable negative effect on the Suns?
I mean, Boris ing Diaw.
Stoudemire and Diaw had already turned back toward the bench at the time of the "altercation" involving Bell.
Exactly what I'm saying. Just because you think there was a dirty play against your teammate and the other team's starting a fight, and you run on to the court, doesn't mean there's an altercation. You shouldn't get suspended for that.
Uh, wait...let me think about that for a second.
FWIW...I think its a ty rule because, as far as I know, there is no set definition of what an "altercation" is and I think the rule is too rigid. I think it should be on a case by case basis.
And dumbasses Duncan and Bowen were trying to pick a fight with Jones, right?
Who started a fight in the Elson incident?
Are Spurs fans REALLY going to say that Boris Diaw ran to Nash in an effort to pick a fight with ANYONE?!
We don't have to.
No we're going to say he left the bench during an altercation. And he did.
It's not a question of being "above the rules." It's a question of fundamental fairness, and expecting some degree of discretion from the commissioner. "Zero tolerance" policies like that one are by definition unreasonable. Once upon a time, there was a saying in the NBA, "no harm, no foul." Zero tolerance does away with that. Zero tolerance is the 12 year old girl suspended for the school semester for giving her friend a Tylenol. It's the cop who tickets you for not using your turn signal to pull into your driveway. It's the mentality that the rule is an end, in and of itself, rather than a means to an end. It's the same mentality that fosters acceptance of authoritarianism and the police state. The commissioner should have done what's right, not blindly followed his own ludicrous zero tolerance policy, just like the DA who understands there's a difference between the poor man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family and the rich man who steals it just to get away with it.
Last edited by Shred; 06-27-2007 at 01:01 PM.
I seriously just owned every Spurs fan in this thread.
Wasn't even that hard.
Off to lunch!
Meaning you expect the commissioner to put your team above the rules.It's not a question of being "above the rules." It's a question of fundamental fairness, and expecting some degree of discretion in the commissioner.
I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
Example: The Spurs owned the Suns in Game 6 even though the Suns had Amare and Boris and Horry was still suspended.
Let me know if you have any other problems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
