That's
You're
Have a good
So...if you break a rule, you should not be punished?
I agree that the rule sucks and I also that agree where in some cases Zero tolerance is excessive but it is a rule. Several Suns fans came here and said that those players should not be suspended even though they violated the rule. And before its mentioned, yes there would be tons of Spurs fans angry if the situation were reversed and there would be several Spurs fans making the same argument you are...but they would also be wrong.
right in who's opinion?The commissioner should have done what's right
Spurs fans would say he did that. Who is wrong?
Sorry if what said went over your head. Read it again.
It didn't go over my head. I was just asking a question.Sorry if what said went over your head. Read it again.
Why do you feel if someone disagrees with you they are somehow inferior to you?
I did. You don't want your team to be subject to the rules.
If Stern/Jackson had said--just like he said about Duncan and Bowen--that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area, therby avoiding this whole controversy and a tarnished playoffs but giving the fans what they wanted, would that have been putting the Suns "above the rules?" Would that have been wrong?
That would be inaccurate.that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area
IMO, no. If Stern ruled that there was no altercation, then the rule would not apply so it would not have been wrong. Elson didn't go after Amare when he was undercut, he went to complain to the ref...if he had gotten in Amare's face that might have been different.If Stern/Jackson had said--just like he said about Duncan and Bowen--that there was no altercation at the time Stoudemire and Diaw left the bench area and that it only started after they had already returned to the bench area, therby avoiding this whole controversy and a tarnished playoffs but giving the fans what they wanted, would that have been putting the Suns "above the rules?" Would that have been wrong?
This goes back to what I posted earlier on one of the reasons why I think its a ty rule. The NBA does not have a definition of what an altercation is and if they do, I don't know it so someone can correct me on it.
And speaking of unanswered questions, just why did Duncan go on to the court?
This is a good show. Thank you guys for giving me something to keep me busy until draft night.
I have a hard time believing that "DA_SUNS_FAN" is real. No one is that ridiculous are they?
has to be a troll alt of some long time poster.
And the harm would be, what? Fans might doubt the integrity of officiating in the NBA? THE HORROR!
Doesn't matter. No altercation.
Why don't you go back and check the video? They're already back by the time Bell gets in Horry's face.
And rules shouldn't apply to one team and not others, why?
Doesn't matter if they thought there was one?
Dumbass: I'm talking about Stern applying the rule identically in each situation.
I answered that in post #229 but no need to go back, I will repost here.And speaking of unanswered questions, just why did Duncan go on to the court?
He and Bowen stepped onto the court when Elson was undercut by Amare and no foul was called. That, in itself, is not against the rule. Although if I was the ref, I would have given them both T's. Amare continued downcourt after it happened and Elson complained to the refs. Bowen and Duncan stepped onto the court when it happened but by rule since there was no altercation, the suspension rule does not come into effect.
Such is the power of the asterisk, Spur fan will deny reality as long as it means in his own sick little mind he can justify what happened.
*
He didn't.
Because there was an altercation after the Nash foul and not after the Elson foul.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote