Duncan vs. KG facts.

[Johnny RIngo]

"Its not tainted! Its not tainted! Its not tainted!!!"

Is that what S0ns and Mav fans are saying these days? They should know better. It's pretty obvious that Steve Trash and Dirk tainted the MVP award. Now any white guy with no defense is a lock for the MVP. I predict Okur or Peja wins MVP next year.

[FromWayDowntown]

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!!!"

Because what Findog and Shred are posting is simply asinine. Sorry that we don't just sit by and let mindless drivel become the words by which this forum is defined.

What's more remarkable to me is that Spurs fans are simply repeating what has been said since the beginning -- that it's a simple rule, that it has no exceptions, that Amare and Boris violated the rule, and that a suspension has always been the punishment for that; its Findog and Shred who are concocting new arguments (or regurgitating old arguments that have long ago been dispelled) in seeking to find some way around the crystal clear justification for the Commisioner's ruling.

Some of the Suns fans who come here have a remarkable capacity to incessantly and mindlessly and then to claim that anyone who responds to their drivel is insecure. Truly, truly remarkable.

[Obstructed_View]

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 there were specific language defining an altercation, chances are you'd be taking issue with it, since you are taking issue with the most specifically worded rule in the rulebook, or you wouldn't understand it, since you seem to be inferring that what happened on the floor wasn't clearly an altercation. Since Horry was suspended for his elbow making contact with Bell above the shoulders while teammates and officials struggled to separate them, I'm not sure how it could be any more clear cut than it is.

If the action on the court is defined as an altercation, they broke it. Pure and Simple.

It was, and they did. Therefore it was a good ruling. Thanks for playing, please drive forward.

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.

This is why people call you stupid. I choose to call you completely full of and blatantly dishonest. Amare RAN onto the court past all the coaches, and only stopped when the referee had to turn away from what he was doing and tell him to get his ass back onto the bench.

Allow me to state that one more time: The official had to turn his back to the altercation and instruct Amare to get back to the bench. The rule didn't work because Amare was out there adding to the confusion, which is exactly what the rule is designed to prevent.

I'm on record as being one of the first, if not THE first person on this message board to say he hoped Amare wouldn't be suspended. Seriously, go look it up. And you are right; the Spurs would have won no matter what. Without Horry's foul the Spurs probably win it in five.

But you guys are trying to argue that what he did wasn't that bad or was somehow not a clear violation of the rules, and as a basketball fan I reject that argument because it's just baseless and ignorant. Amare clearly put his fate into the hands of the league when he left the bench, and he violated the rule so egregiously that the league could not have given him a pass and kept any semblance of credibility.

[Findog]

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!!!"

Your team would've lost anyway, so it's not tainted. It just would've been nice to watch a series at full-strength for both teams. I want Horry available for those games too.

[Obstructed_View]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.

What ruling? There was no ruling. There was a punishment administered for a violation of the rules. The punishment is spelled out in the rules. Ruling implies a choice. Choice was eliminated when Diaw and Amare chose to leave the bench.

[Obstructed_View]

17 pages of arguing...i think its safe to say Spurs fans realize what a joke the ruling was.

No, it's just fun to shoot holes through the same lame excuse you make for your team melting down. We all know that if you actually thought your team had a chance, they wouldn't have been lobbying to have Bruce Bowen suspended. Twice.

By the way, why do you think the league should have overlooked the rules just for your team?

[da_suns_fan__]

No, it's just fun to shoot holes through the same lame excuse you make for your team melting down. We all know that if you actually thought your team had a chance, they wouldn't have been lobbying to have Bruce Bowen suspended. Twice.

By the way, why do you think the league should have overlooked the rules just for your team?

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!

[ambchang]

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.

The whole point of the rule was to prevent incidents from escalating to an uncontrollable level, which this rule has been effective in doing for the last decade.
A chicken decision by the league would be to go the popular viewpoint, ignore the rule, and "give a break" the Suns, or something that is directly opposite to what was done in this case.

[ChumpDumper]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!

Nah, no altercation when they walked on the court.

Owned.

[ambchang]

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 was this one guy, David Irving, who said the holocaust never happened, then all these people came out and said that he was wrong, I guess by your logic, it just shows how unfounded the holocaust is, while the people who retorts are just a bunch of whiners.

Or simply by your logic, the lesser the response, the more correct the decision was.

So how do you explain all the post explaining why Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw shouldn't be suspended after the suspension was handed down?

[Obstructed_View]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!

Too bad Jones and Elson were smart enough to walk away from each other.

So I ask again: Why do you think the rules shouldn't have to apply to your team when they have to apply to everyone else?

[ambchang]

Same reason they overlooked Duncan and Bowen walking out onto the court.

OWNED!

Do you have trouble reading? Go back a few post in this thread, and you will see how this argument was shot down, or any of the threads about the suspensions. Show me a clip of what altercation took place when Duncan and Bowen stepped on the court.

Talking about insecure ... continuously saying that you own people by regurgitating other people's argument that was shot down long ago would be called extremely insecure in my books, but then we will probably go another 17 pages talking about what insecure means.

[Obstructed_View]

Oh, by the way:

TD>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>K G.