Reply With Quote
If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to , would you?
If Stern had said, Stoudemire and Diaw had remained "near the bench," or "in the bench area," you all would really have no reason to , would you?
Well, all of those guys stayed within the bench area.
I'll define bench area the same way that I did in my earlier post -- if Stoudemire and Diaw had been responding to an incident on the opposite side of the floor, they would have been 10-20 feet onto the playing floor. Are you going to tell me that they would have been in the bench area in that cir stance.
I'm absolutely sure that a rule compelling players to stay within the bench area doesn't contemplate players being 10-20 feet away from the bench.
Well, I'm not a Suns fan, but as a basketball fan, I would prefer that the League this summer adds some flexibility in meting out punishment.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.
And if one of the Utah players had mimicked AS/BD's actions, my stance would remain the same.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
There was no way he could have said that, so it's moot.
Curiously, we're not the ones who are shrieking about it being a bad rule. You are. I'm not ing about anything; other than " ing" about the asinine nature of your takes on this matter, I haven't observed that ChumpDumper, Spurminator, or anyone else who is participating in this oh-so-timely discussion is ing about what happened.
If Stern had said that Stoudemire and Diaw had remained near the bench, though, I think he would have had some significant problems dealing with future occurrences similar to this one. He would either have to say that the rule doesn't mean what it says or that it should be applied differently if the wrong players happen to violate the rule at an important time. I don't think either result is particularly tenable.
Considering what the rule is in place to prevent, the punishmant is fitting.They didn't, that was the whole point.And if one of the Utah players had mimicked AS/BD's actions, my stance would remain the same.
Stern already asked them to consider something like that. They said no.
So, you're cool with players leaving the bench during altercations and possibly creating even more havoc than already exists? You think punishments should be different if the act happens to occur at an inopportune time for a team?
Yeah, you'll never get me to agree with that. And, to this point at least, the league's owners are on my side of that disagreement.
Future occurrences could be evaluated based on their particular cir stances, too. It wouldn't have changed anything, just like the outcome of the Kings pre-season game incident didn't change anything. My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....
Right, because the definition of "bench area" is carved in stone.
But again, (and again...being serious) wouldn't that be not following the rules?My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles
Where do we draw the line?
Established by precedent.
Stay near the bench.
You can even have your feet over the sideline.
How difficult is that?
Why? Just stay near the bench and you don't get suspended.It was decided on the court. The Suns lost in six.It wouldn't have changed anything, just like the outcome of the Kings pre-season game incident didn't change anything. My only point is, he could have been flexible, he could have avoided this controversy, he could have allowed the series to be decided on the court, but Stern had to flex his muscles....
No, he couldn't have. Unless you're willing to say that near the bench doesn't really mean near the bench if the right players are involved at the right time, the rule says what it says. There's no reasonable interpretation terms like "near the bench" or "altercation" that would have provided the league with any discretion in that instance.
Like I said before, if the league had said the rule didn't apply in this case, it would either: (1) created an extraordinarily slippery slope that applied a strict liability rule on a results-oriented basis -- contrary to what the league's owners want; or (2) have been forced to admit that it was making a special exception BECAUSE it was Amare Stoudemire and BECAUSE it was an important playoff game. Neither result strikes me as a good one for the league and either suggests strongly that the league can be pushed off of enforcement of its rules for some hoped-for minor improvement in television ratings.
If the Suns get KG, I'm pretty sure that he won't be leaving the bench area during any altercations. The way that he backed down from Manu Ginobili a couple of years ago was simply priceless. Absolutely priceless.
If the Suns get KG, I'm pretty sure that he won't be leaving the bench area during any altercations. The way that he backed down from Manu Ginobili a couple of years ago was simply priceless. Absolutely priceless.Forgot about that.
Yeah, dead momma smack is the extent of KG's badassery.
and that worked really well for him too.Yeah, dead momma smack is the extent of KG's badassery.
First: I'm not saying what "the bench area" is. I'm asking what YOU think it should be defined as. If it doesn't have any definition, doesn't that give Stern some leeway?
Second: "Extraordinarily slippery slope?" Oh, BS. The ruling in the Kings' case didn't have drastic consequences. Don't be so dramatic.
Yes. Given the case that led to the rule change, it allows the player standing in the bench area to have his feet partially over the sideline.First: I'm not saying what "the bench area" is. I'm asking what YOU think it should be defined as. If it doesn't have any definition, doesn't that give Stern some leeway?
1. I've told you that I think "the bench area" is, at the very least, defined to mean at least within 10 feet. I think the definition is probably even more restrictive than that, frankly, since 10 feet from the bench could create the very trouble that the rule is intended to prevent. But there's no doubt in the case that you can't let go that each of the culprits was more than 10 feet away from the bench. That's enough. You want Stern to have some leeway, but I'm saying to you that if he decided that these guys didn't leave the bench area, there would be very few cir stances, short of players crossing the halfcourt line to enter the fray, in which the rule would ever apply. I'll take it from the Commissioner that the owners don't want the rule applied in that fashion.
2. The ruling in the Kings case was an extraordinary cir stance. Stern has made clear, since then, that even in cir stances similar to those that occurred between SAC and LAL that players leaving the bench to engage in altercations anywhere in the building won't be tolerated. Ask DJ M'benga or Antonio Davis about the Commissioner's commitment to that view.
Why not 9 feet, 9 inches?
Why not control yourself from running 10 feet from the bench?
I'm not even primarily a Spurs fan and these whining Suns fans still astound me. What in the @#$% does this crap have to do with KG coming to the Suns? Oh yeah, KG isn't re ed and wouldn't have left the bench area. Clearly, the Suns are now the favorites.
That would be out right biased to benefit the Suns, and why would Stern do that?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?
There was clearly a altercation, both players were at least 15 feet away from the bench area on a 90-foot court, how could you explain either not being that case? It had application, and the application is that two players were not able to follow a rule where 400+ players were able to follow year after year for a decade (or at least know the consequences). Everybody knew it was coming, the commentators were talking about them being suspended right after the play. Why a basketball fan like yourself could not understand this after two months is the part I don't get.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions