Thank you, Spurs, Mr. Stern

[mavsfan1000]

And don't pretend like you didn't read that I caught your dumb ass plagiarizing Grant Hill. If you are going to talk basketball, do your own research. I expect idiot posts like the above from now on.

I didn't even know Grant Hill said something like that. I don't really care too much about this Jazz and Spurs series. It's common sense though since Duncan is too strong and long to back down in the low post. Take him out further and hope your shot is on.

[Obstructed_View]

NBAisDEAD had me until he threw in "puerile." Age requirement > 12 for usage.

I was wondering how someone with such a good vocabulary could be so dumb. UV Ray uses big words, but he uses them incorrectly.

[sabar]

Suns fans absolutely can't answer that question though. I'd have felt mildly bad about the Spurs winning the series if anyone could have ever given me a single reason why the rule should be ignored. They gave Horry an extra game to make all the whiners happy, and the media just wanted the series to go longer or they were rooting for the Suns so they'd have something to write about. You pretty much nailed the fan sentiment, though.

The strongest argument is saying they were still in the vicinity, however, this is automatically overruled in my opinion by the fact that the precedent has been one toe on the court and the fact that he went a good 15-20 feet -- well past what any regular person would consider the vicinity of the bench.

The common argument is ignoring the rules for the sake of entertainment which of course undermines the integrity of the rules in the first place.

--

Anyhow, decent trolling, but I didn't buy the intellectual bit.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you did last longer than Buddy Holly did in the other argument I was having at the same time, and mavfan is keeping it real now.

[NBAisDead]

Also, I want to apologize if any real Jews were offended. I was trying to think of a believable reason for why Stern would favor the hard-to-market Spurs, and for the life of me, that was the only thing that remotely came to my mind.

[Strike]

I was wondering how someone with such a good vocabulary could be so dumb. UV Ray uses big words, but he uses them incorrectly.

[Obstructed_View]

I didn't even know Grant Hill said something like that. I don't really care too much about this Jazz and Spurs series.

Yet you made the observation that Boozer would take Duncan out of the paint and shoot from the perimeter, which was wrong because Grant Hill used the wrong word when he was speaking on ESPN. Just stick with your regular stupid takes and homer-based semi-trolling and everything will be fine.

[Strike]

Also, I want to apologize if any real Jews were offended. I was trying to think of a believable reason for why Stern would favor the hard-to-market Spurs, and for the life of me, that was the only thing that remotely came to my mind.

Didn't matter to me. I'm agnostic.

[Obstructed_View]

Also, I want to apologize if any real Jews were offended. I was trying to think of a believable reason for why Stern would favor the hard-to-market Spurs, and for the life of me, that was the only thing that remotely came to my mind.

I'm agnostic. I was totally scrambling on Google to find a question that a Jewish child would be able to answer, and then I asked a history question that was too easy to look up.

[sabar]

Also, I want to apologize if any real Jews were offended. I was trying to think of a believable reason for why Stern would favor the hard-to-market Spurs, and for the life of me, that was the only thing that remotely came to my mind.

Stern would have one reason to favor the Spurs, because they embody what he has been obsessed with in the time since the brawl -- the integrity of the league. The Spurs are classy, don't themselves to the media, and would never get in a brawl. The ruling on the suspension would even further push the point that Stern does indeed care about the integrity of the league more than he does about having a good game with no suspended players.

[Obstructed_View]

That was fun. I gotta crash.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

this wasn't even an argument to begin with because we all know that in all incorrupt instutions anyone who agrees that rules should be bent only in "certain situations" for the benefit of only a few people is unreasonable and a moron.

This is what is wrong with America:
Most people are unreasonable because they think our judicial system is provides us with justice and that the "philosophy" of it should be applied to every instution.

Well you

[Obstructed_View]

Stern would have one reason to favor the Spurs, because they embody what he has been obsessed with in the time since the brawl -- the integrity of the league. The Spurs are classy, don't themselves to the media, and would never get in a brawl. The ruling on the suspension would even further push the point that Stern does indeed care about the integrity of the league more than he does about having a good game with no suspended players.

Stern has done a lot of things like that. If he was as evil as everyone says, he's had a hundred chances to screw the Spurs in the interest of the NBA, and he's never done it. I understand why Horry got the extra game. Fortunately it didn't end up being a factor. I'd have blamed Horry if it had.

[polandprzem]

NBAisDead is screwing ppl around


So who outsmarts whom?

[Scotti]

No wonder you mistook Diop for Diaw. It's quite difficult for a fan to make such a mistake.

But the argument that has been going on for the most part of this thread puts 'whining' Phoenix fans at an obvious disadvantage.

S/he should not be arguing based on past precedents. There is apparently no precedent in the NBA that offers a basis for the bending of this particular rule.

What s/he should be disputing is the axiomatic commitment that the rules must be enforced strictly, at all times, regardless of the actual situation.

S/he should argue that just as more physical basketball is acceptable in the playoffs (as opposed to the regular season), there is room for negotiation with regard to the rules - the purpose of which are to contribute to the value of fairness. Common sense must prevail above the rules which are set in black and white.

If Horry and Nash were fighting because of a loose ball, and Amare and Diaw stepped in, most of the Phoenix fans, I believe, would have just lamented how stupid their own players were. Owing to the nature of Horry's foul, in which Nash was deemed to be solely the victim, they felt the NBA should have practised sympathetic discretion in the administeration of the rule.

It boils down to a couple of questions: What are rules for (fairness or correctness)? Should the NBA be allowed to apply the rules according to their own discretion - just as the court of law allows mitigating cir stances to affect the given punishment- or would such application lead to chaos in the long run?

Thus there's no point arguing about the specific incident. There's no need to mention Horry, Nash, Amare or Diaw any further. If there's a need to advance this argument any further, we should be disputing the premises that both sides hold to, underneath the actual argument.

And why the premises each side accepts are actually justified.

That may make the whole discussion more worthwhile.

PS: I support the ruling btw. They deserve their suspension.

[greyforest]

man that original post is the most sour ing grapes i've ever seen

lmfao

[foodie2]

this contrived conceit that defense wins championships.

This was my favorite sentence in the post. Note that all four teams still playing (and thus one of whom will be the champions) do, in fact, play defense. So I'm not sure how it can be a "contrived conceit".

[Ronaldo McDonald]

A rule is fair if everyone is given provided with common sense and same opportunity to follow it.

It's like in the movie Speed. would it have been fair for the bus driver, Keanus character, to get a ticket for driving too fast?

Amare and Diaw can comprehend and follow rules just like everyone else can, and should. They decided not to.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

No wonder you mistook Diop for Diaw. It's quite difficult for a fan to make such a mistake.

But the argument that has been going on for the most part of this thread puts 'whining' Phoenix fans at an obvious disadvantage.

S/he should not be arguing based on past precedents. There is apparently no precedent in the NBA that offers a basis for the bending of this particular rule.

What s/he should be disputing is the axiomatic commitment that the rules must be enforced strictly, at all times, regardless of the actual situation.

S/he should argue that just as more physical basketball is acceptable in the playoffs (as opposed to the regular season), there is room for negotiation with regard to the rules - the purpose of which are to contribute to the value of fairness. Common sense must prevail above the rules which are set in black and white.

If Horry and Nash were fighting because of a loose ball, and Amare and Diaw stepped in, most of the Phoenix fans, I believe, would have just lamented how stupid their own players were. Owing to the nature of Horry's foul, in which Nash was deemed to be solely the victim, they felt the NBA should have practised sympathetic discretion in the administeration of the rule.

It boils down to a couple of questions: What are rules for (fairness or correctness)? Should the NBA be allowed to apply the rules according to their own discretion - just as the court of law allows mitigating cir stances to affect the given punishment- or would such application lead to chaos in the long run?

Thus there's no point arguing about the specific incident. There's no need to mention Horry, Nash, Amare or Diaw any further. If there's a need to advance this argument any further, we should be disputing the premises that both sides hold to, underneath the actual argument.

And why the premises each side accepts are actually justified.

That may make the whole discussion more worthwhile.

PS: I support the ruling btw. They deserve their suspension.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

oops

[Ronaldo McDonald]

the point in bold:

I think, if your not a Suns fan right now, the general feeling would be a that NBA discretion would make things even more complicated.

EDIT:

In extreme cirumstances that would essentially allow owners and coaches to bring in the argument that certain players are mentally challenged.

[Trainwreck2100]

I don't know why the original poster is complaining, Cuban (his messiah) agreed with this.

[Extra Stout]

You have successfully assassinated basketball as we know it for a critical generation of sports fans. You took the last kernel of sanc y and e in a sport saturated with thuggery, flushed it down your corporate toilet, and replaced it with a bland piece of molded burnt toast. You've sold out to cronyism and this contrived conceit that defense wins championships. In doing so, you have lost a legeion of lifelong hoops devotes, including myself.

Thank you for the soiling the purity of a great game. Thank you for spoiling the one thing other than sex that I enjoy in life.

I hope you can sleep at night, commissioner. Enjoy getting beat out by hockey in the Nielsens.

WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

[smeagol]

I can bet Amare, albeit his low IQ, is punching himself in the stomach for what he did.

[smeagol]

WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

He was joking, ES