Reply With Quote
WTF, dude. Now you just sound like a bitter Suns Fans.
Horry initiated contact. He had nothing to do with the altercation that took place afterwards. Go watch the replay and tell me who starts the actual altercation. I'll give you a hint, it's not Horry.
WTF, dude. Now you just sound like a bitter Suns Fans.
He got called for a foul, which is all that was necessary.
Absolutely. The NBA rules also specifically mention fighting fouls as well. I don't think the bench rule depends upon there either being a punch thrown or a fight as defined elsewhere.
It's really a very simple concept: the league wants to limit the possibility that anyone other than the 10 guys on the floor might get involved if a situation escalates. One sure-fire way to do that is to require those who aren't in the game to stay near the bench area. And one way to ensure that those who must stay near the bench area do so is to impose a draconian punishment like a one-game suspension, no questions asked. Even if it doesn't become a full-fledged fight, even if there are no punches thrown, even if the players intent was peaceful.
In the end, the onus was on Stoudemire and Diaw to do what the other 12 bench players managed to do that evening -- to stay in the bench area when there was an altercation.
I don't understand why so many remain interested in trying to excuse Amare and Diaw from acting like jackasses.
And he was suspended two games for it.
Are you saying Horry wasn't punished enough?
It wasn't anything about realistic, just pointing out how glaringly lacking your definition is. Before the Palace brawl, people would have thought that it was out of the realm of the realistic. Before Melo clocking Collins and backpeddling 90 feet, nobody thought that it would be realistic to have an NBA chicken out like that, but here we are. And it helps to show what an altercation is. Was the scene in the Tarantino movie an altercation? Or was it not?
And where did Bowen kick someone in the shins? Do you want to show the video as well?
So far, an altercation, as defined in a dictionary, is not accepted by you because you like to randomly come up with definitions that suits your point. An altercation does not just include a punch, or a slap, or whatever you felt like putting into it, it has been defined earlier on in the thread, and sure as an elbow shove to the neck is an altercation, and the subsequently having referees and teammates pulling people back is an altercation.
An ad hominem argument is intended to discredit one's argument by criticizing the one making the argument. Since your argument requires no discrediting, due to the fact that it is completely stupid, calling you stupid could be considered simply a logical conclusion. If he'd taken any two of your stupid arguments into account, we could have called it a syllogism.
And just for the record, it wasn't a cheap shot. By rule it was an offensive foul on Nash.
Actually, upthread I said his ejection was enough as is. I didn't want to see Horry suspended for two games and I didn't want to see Diaw or AS suspended either. It's the playoffs, let 'em play.
and if they aren't playing, let 'em stay near the bench.
what a ridiculous argument.
duncan v. kg, that is. i'm tired of the amare argument as well.
Nobody wanted to see anyone suspended, but saying that it was somehow within the commissioner's power not to suspend them is ludicrous.
Duncan >>>>>>>>> KG.
Hey, I'm on a Spursboard, I know I'm going against the grain, here at least. But the rule about leaving the bench applies only if the action on the court cons utes an "altercation." Where is the specific language in the rulebook that defines an "altercation"? Is it punches being thrown? Pushing and shoving? A full-on Malice at Palace-style brawl?
If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple. But since the whole thing ending up being nothing of consequence, no harm, no foul, what is the point in suspending two guys over nothing? The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.
Since the Spurs > Suns and would've won the series suspensions or not, I find it surprising that Spurs fans are so insistent on defending a chicken decision by the League office.
He had enough wiggle room to define it as not cons uting an altercation, thus not triggering the leave the bench rule. It's just common sense. Either not define it as an altercation or iif you're so insistent that little cripple fight cons ued one, then roll the punishment over to the regular season. It's the playoffs, these things should be settled on the court.
It was, so why are you still whining about it.If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple.They were stupid for walking out and their coaches were doubly stupid for ing to the refs first and not immediately restraining the players mere minutes after warning the players not to get involved in any hijinks. All they had to do was control themselves. Why should they be rewarded for their lack of self-control?The rule as it was intended worked fine -- they stepped out onto the court past the bench, were restrained by their coaches and returned to the bench area.
I agree Spurs would have won regardless, but I would rather beat them full strength.
The problem is, rules are rules. You can't bend them, especially this rule.
The fact the rule was upheld as is by the NBA owners makes your argument moot:
It's going to stay that way. The point of the rule is to prevent an altercation from getting worse. The rule worked.
The good news for you: If a Spurs player ever gets suspended for this rule, then Spurs fans will have no way to complain.
So elbows to the throat are now allowed in the NBA. Brillliant.I don't think you understand that phrase.It's just common sense.Players not in the game should stay near the bench.Either not define it as an altercation or iif you're so insistent that little cripple fight cons ued one, then roll the punishment over to the regular season. It's the playoffs, these things should be settled on the court.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 06-28-2007 at 03:13 PM.
I'm not trying to come across as whining about it, I know it sounds like it. FWIW, I was rooting for San Antonio on account of Finley and Stern's decision made it easier for them to advance.
I'll put it this way: Suppose you have to be at work everyday at 8:00 am. And one day you roll in at 8:01. Yeah, you're late, but only an anal retentive type would dock you for it and find you in non-compliance. Since it was the playoffs, not a meaningless regular season game between Charlotte and Milwaukee, I was hoping Stern would err on the side of letting things be decided on the court, especially since BD and AS's actions led to nothing of consequence.
This rule's intent is something much more critical to the success of the league than preventing iness.
Can't around with that.
17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.
lol, dumbass forgot what he started the thread about.
It's an analogy.
No, spurfans realize just how much two sunfans and one mavfan can whine.
It's astounding.
It's an extremely poor analogy because it trivializes the reason the rule exists.
The ruling was fine. Steve Trash winning MVP twice was a joke. Tainted the MVP award.
For every one post from FindDog or Shred, there's a dozen retorts from Spurs fans.....
"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
