Reply With Quote
Fine. 9 feet, 9 inches away from the bench is not in the bench area. In fact, I think a player is "not in the bench area" for purposes of the rule if he takes more than 2 or 3 steps away from the bench.
Every team would immediately take the 5-game regular season punishment for obvious reasons, but what about trades? What about retirements? And with every single theory out there, punishment has to be clear and immediate to be effective. The rule is a good rule, and has stopped bench-clearing brawls for a good part of a decade (Artest incident being the exception). And bench-clearing brawls was plaguing the league in the mid 90s. The Knicks, Heat, and coincidentally the Suns were involved in those brawls that negatively impacted the league's image.
Fine. 9 feet, 9 inches away from the bench is not in the bench area. In fact, I think a player is "not in the bench area" for purposes of the rule if he takes more than 2 or 3 steps away from the bench.
It certainly does not mean outside the arena, in the locker room, or 15 feet from the bench.
You can argue that this rule is stupid, which I think it is not and was proven by the committee rejecting the rule change, but there is absolutely no way you can argue that Amare and Boris was near the bench during the altercation.
For a guy who is propagating the spirit of the rule, you sure are spending much time trying to argue semantics and nail down the specifics in terms of defining the near terms in terms of feet and inches.
Why would Spurs fan when the Spurs were not penalized in the situation? For the longest time, I thought taking an incident that is two months old and asking for peferrential treatment, while crying "No fair" all along would cons ute as ing.
So you are asking for the league to go back a decade, and use the rule that got Ewing suspended? Sure, but that would get Amare suspended as well.
What would your take be? Suspend every player unless it was a Suns player who averaged over 8 ppg, or 3 rpg in the playoffs against a team that has traditionally given the Suns problems?
Since Amare ran completely out onto the court, past Steve Nash, out of the coach's box, and toward Robert Horry, isn't this whole discussion moot?
But we have to make sure he went past 9 feet 9 inches.
This rule should NEVER be changed at all, and the bloody, mangled face of Rudy Tomjanovich after taking a Kermit Washington haymaker should be justification enough.
If something that violent and gruesome could result from players entering an altercation, then a hard line rule aimed at preventing the escalation of an altercation must remain on the books. Really, I'm surprised this rule was enacted so long after the Rudy T incident.
I'd like to preface this by according to the rules, both Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire should be suspended. So no argument there.
But people have to recognize the fact that Rudy T was a complete freak accident. You can't make a bunch of knee jerk reactions about one crazy accident. What you do is you change the rule to say that anybody involved in the "escalation of a conflict will be dealt with accordinly by the league." In most other instances of NBA discipline, rarely do we see such set in stone rules like this. A rule that can adapt to cir stances and allow for mitigating factors allows for fair judgements.
I mean Rudy T was in 1977. That's almost a twenty year period in which there wasn't this hard line rule and nobody else was seriously hurt.
The rule is about the image of the league as well as the players' safety.
It's all worth it.
Oh my God, shut the up and stop whining about this already. Stern didn't "flex his muscles," he followed a rule. Your team's dumbass players left the bench, and it's against the rules. They got suspended. DEAL WITH IT. How was he going to be more flexible? Suspend Amare and Diaw for the first half of Game 5? If Nash hadn't flopped like a , it wouldn't have even looked as bad and there wouldn't even have been an altercation.
I think it's obvious that Sun Fan and the Phoenix organization are pansies. The owners got together and the rule was not changed. That should tell you something. It's Amare and Diaw's fault they got suspended. No one else's.
No disrespect Shred, but I am really getting tired of hearing this. Move on already.
You really should disrespect Shred.
Regular steps or Manu steps?
The language in the rule doesn't define an "altercation." Is it really worth tarnishing a series after the entire sequence resulted in no harm, no foul, just a cripple "fight" between Nash and Horry?
It wasn't Nash, mavfan.
Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are.
Stick to fishing.
Are you really contending that there was no altercation between Bell and Horry?
The thing is, none of the Spurs players actually started the altercation. Horry started walking off but all the Suns players rushed toward him and tried to fight him, because their poor little MVP fell down. That's when the altercation started. It was an altercation, Amare and Diaw left the bench the rule was violated. I don't know why this simple logic turns into a big argument and involves so many Stern conspiracy theories.
You guys know what the an altercation is. It shouldn't need to be defined.
IMO in this case it should be.
An altercation can be anything from arguing to trading punches.
Per dictionary.com:
altercation--
A heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.
A vehement quarrel.
noisy quarrel
There is too much gray area.
But from that argument, you can be damn sure that an elbow shove is an altercation. There could be a grey area in other cases, but in this, it's very black and white.
The rule is fine.
Stay near the bench.
Wow...i cant believe there are suns fans still whining after all this time.
Horry started the entire sequence on a cheap-shot flagrant foul. For what it's worth, I didn't think suspending Horry for two games was necessary. He got a flagrant, he was ejected, that should've been the end of it on his end.The thing is, none of the Spurs players actually started the altercation.
What is your definition of an "altercation"? Jostling and harsh words exchanged? Because it must be for that incident to count as one.
Did Bell throw a punch at Horry? Did Horry throw a punch at Bell? I have to believe that if Bell had, he would've been suspended as well.It wasn't Nash, mavfan.
Thanks for proving just how ignorant you are.
Stick to fishing.
You just answered your own question.
Stay near the bench.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
