Reply With Quote
Nah, they knew the rule and who was suspended because of it and why. Kerr merely predicted what would happen. The tape was going to be reviewed no matter what, so another in your long line of arguments fails.
Wasn't our idea.Sending youtube clips to try and find the slightest bit of evidence that Amare and Diaw left the bench area.
Nah, they knew the rule and who was suspended because of it and why. Kerr merely predicted what would happen. The tape was going to be reviewed no matter what, so another in your long line of arguments fails.
That is my point. Stern just should have said the rule didn't apply, maybe give Horry a 1-game suspension, and let it go....
I don't, because the media was clearly on the Suns side throughout the whole ordeal. Yes, they challenged Stern and whoever challenged Stern usually fails, but that tape was going to be reviewed regardless, it was a flagrant two, there was an altercation with shoves exchanged, and there was general mahem. It's not like if Kerr didn't bring it up, the league office will act like nothing happened.
So Stern should have said the rules don't apply to the Phoenix Suns.
Great argument.
Damn, still whining.
I'd say "sig worthy" if this was still a topic of any current relevance. At this point it's like putting an Andrew Dice Clay quote in your sig.
It would most helpful and save us all a lot of future consternation if Sun Fan, in advance of the 2007-2008 season, gave us the list of rules from which the Suns should be excluded.
Thaaaaaanks.
But why would Stern give a special amnesty and say the rule doesn't apply this time? I really do not understand your argument.
Horry bodychecked Nash, Bell challenged Horry, Horry shoved Bell, and Amare and Diaw left bench. It is about the clearest rule.
It would be nice for Stern to excuse the Suns and let them play because the Suns are media darlings and draw in huge amounts of revenue, but that would be destroying the league.
The league suspended Ewing for having his foot on the line because that was the written rule, Ewing was NOT excused in an arguable MORE important game in the playoffs. The rule was subsequently changed but the message is clear, once the rule is there, the league will follow that rule word for word, why is it that out of 450 players in the league, only Diaw and Stoudemire not get this?
I disagree.
Nope, the tape would've been reviewed and the same conclusion would have been reached.
Certainly strangling me with the grip of reason.
Oh, Lord.He should have said the rule had no application in this instance--that there was no "altercation," or they were "near" the "bench area," or that the mythical "reasonable person" could disagree about whether the situation met the undefined terms in the rule--not that the rule didn't apply to the Suns across the board, but that it had no application in this instance. Get it?
It's a good rule but they should change it this offseason to give themselves a degree of flexibility in meting out punishment. They broke the rule, a rule that is a good one, so punish them, but let's not have it negatively impact a playoff series. Spurs probably would've won anyway but the Suns definitely were negatively impacted by the ruling. They should give teams the option to sit a guy immediately for one game or roll the punishment over to the next regular season for 5 games. If they change teams during the offseason, the new team is just going to have to live with that rolled-over punishment.
That to me would preserve the integrity of the rule and prevent it from negatively impacting a playoff series as well.
No doubt! But seeing as how the league didn't have enough foresight to do that in the first place, they should have at least used some discretion in applying the undefined words in the rule (the rule that is followed, as one poster put it, "word for word").
The only wiggle room as far as I can see is that players cannot leave the bench during an "altercation." Since no punches were thrown AFAIK (didn't see the video but some Spurs fans claimed Bell threw one at Horry, if that were true, I can't imagine the League would've missed it) and it was just Nash and Horry jostling and exchanging words, the League could've said this didnt fit the definition of an altercation and left it alone. I mean the rule worked out fine as it is: they took several steps onto the court, the assistants pulled them back before they could do anything, no harm, no foul. But they did go out onto the court and the League decided this was an "altercation." Using that as your guide, they left themselves no wiggle room.
But it clearly did have an application in this instance.Oh, Lord.
The league had plenty of foresight since they had already changed the rule to not suspend a guy standing near the bench with his feet partially over the sideline.
Everything would have been fine had Amare and Boris stayed near the bench.
Even if they had their feet partially over the sideline.
Two things -- though I still can't believe that Suns fans are gripping on this:
1. All things remaining the same, if the altercation involving Horry and Bell had taken place on the opposite side of the floor, there's no doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw would have been a significant distance onto the playing floor. In that instance, I also don't think there would be any room to argue that they were in the vicinity of the bench, unless the lane line nearest the bench is considered to be within the vicinity of the bench. I don't think that a player is somehow exempt from the rule because the altercation he's responding to happens to be on the adjacent sideline and his gallop to enter the fray happens to end before he reaches the end of the coaching box.
2. The League has already taken up the issue of revising the rule. During the Finals, Commissioner Stern went on Dan Patrick's show and told the whole nation that he, David Stern, had asked the committee to consider a change; the committee refused. The rule remains the same.
The only reason KG had higher stats than Timmy is because he was really the only player on those T-Wolves teams that were any good.....HE HAD TO PLAY LIKE THAT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN. which he didn't most of the time. Just goes to show a good team can beat a one-man team almost all of the time.Knew THAT was coming!!!
"Ok ok...so Duncan doesn't outplay KG, but we meant that Duncan owns KG when it comes to rings".
Don't want to have to face a summer of thinking that your playoff series was negatively impacted? Don't leave the bench during an altercation.
You know, Baron Davis put a much more substantial hit on Derek Fisher in Game 4 of the UTH/GST series than anything that Horry considered doing to Nash. Remarkably, every single guy on the Utah bench stayed within the vicinity of the bench and nobody got suspended.
During the NJ/CLE series, the teams traded big hits at one point and nobody from either team left the vicinity of the bench during those altercations.
It's a remarkably efficient system. Those who control themselves and abide by the rules aren't suspended.
No, it's not the bench, it's the "bench area." How do YOU define it?
What is "near the bench?"
Jazz players clearly had no problem with the definition.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
