Sarver "The team that plays dirty should not be rewarded"

[MadDog73]

yes the series is wrecked. But Amare and Diaw's dumbasses wrecked it.

The series is not wrecked. At most, one game is wrecked.

Suns still can win game 6 and 7...


, Suns can win tonight! Nash will be playing like a maniac, and the PHX crowd will be ready to rumble.

[infinite styles]

I was talking to my friend last night about this whole thing and I was like, nobody has a problem with rules until they get caught breaking them. That goes for everything in life. Nobody really complained about this rule when 12th men and bench warmers were losing one game salaries because of it, but now that two key players of a contender get 1 gamers for it its all of a sudden the worst rule in the league.

Everybody knew about this rule and it was no big secret. I can recall numerous times in games when commentators (including Kerr) would talk about how this rule has helped to keep fights down in the NBA and made it a lot better for the safety of the players. So I don't feel sorry for people when they and moan about it now. For the record I like the rule but think it needs a little more room for interpretation and not be so iron-clad. But I don't agree with all the complaining now when you probably wouldn't have complained about it if it was Burke and Piatkowski running on the court and nobody would have asked that the rule be changed. Everybody would have went about their business calling the Spurs dirty and loving their life.

[Kevin Blackistone]

No response to a well-reasoned argument, other than to acknowledge you're out of ammo by saying "That's stupid." Look in the mirror, please.

I'm sure you've ready my last post by now and are rescinding this one as we speak...

[CubanMustGo]

Why not just roll the suspensions over to the next regular season? Punish guys for breaking rules, fine, or suspend them immediately for landing punches, but why should this affect the potential outcome of a playoff series?

If you truly care about your product, why wreck a great series because Amare and Diaw wandered 20 feet away from their bench?

Because the infraction was committed in the playoffs, the penalty must be in the playoffs. Otherwise you get things like players taking out other players b/c they know they don't get penalized until the regular season when WGAF.

(that said I don't agree with ANY of the suspensions)

[Findog]

bending the rules to accomodate stars who can't follow them. that goes on enough in pro sports and to a more general extent, in our society. you don't want players coming off the bench when there is a fight so that such a situation can be contained and controlled. especially in the playoffs when emotions are raised.

No harm, no foul. Better to punish acts of violence after the fact that permanently alter the complexion of a series.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why not just roll the suspensions over to the next regular season? Punish guys for breaking rules, fine, or suspend them immediately for landing punches, but why should this affect the potential outcome of a playoff series?

If you truly care about your product, why wreck a great series because Amare and Diaw wandered 20 feet away from their bench?

I'd take part of this ruling to be the league's unwillingness to cave into the notion of ignoring its own rules for purposes of putting on a better show.

It would have been very easy for the league to say that Stoudemire and Diaw are too important to the Suns and that it would affect the overall quality of the NBA product if each was suspended. Of course, a counterpoint to such an argument is the argument that the quality of the NBA product is compromised when the league makes exceptions for star players because they're star players (see, e.g, complaining about D. Wade, 2006 NBA Finals).

This is a rule that has always been enforced in this manner. Had the league done anything differently here, there would have been all sorts of reasonable cries from some corners that the league was playing favorites and making the very sorts of exceptions that lead to concerns about conspiracies.

Even as a Spurs fan, I wish that there had been some basis to diminish the punishment for Stoudemire and Diaw. But, the exception that would have been created would have been untenable on a going-forward basis because, really, the question about whether these guys left the bench area wasn't a very difficult one.

[Kevin Blackistone]

And Horry as well for carrying out the Code Red.

now that was the stupidest thing I've read in the last 20 minutes. You're somehow finding a way to top yourself, keep it up.

[ducks]

starver did not have a problem with it last year
when aj's wife and sun fan went at it and dallas's 12 man went up to her rescue and got kicked out

[Findog]

Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. Allowing the suspensions to be rolled over to a meaningless season opener game would negate the fact that the league is extremely image conscious and does not tolerate fighting and on court post play altercations...Especially on national TV...

If the League is extremely image conscious then they wouldn't decide a playoff series in the commisioner's office. They wouldn't ins ute a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense. Amare and Diaw broke a rule, fine. Let them sit out their season opener for 07-08. But don't tell me that Stern and Jackson had this scenario in mind when they crafted it as a response to Pacers-Pistons. The correct thing to do would've been to say "Wow! We never anticipated a situation like this when we ins uted this rule, and to be fair, it's helped the referees keep order. But we can't in good conscience continue to enforce it in such an ironclad manner."

[Kevin Blackistone]

I'd take part of this ruling to be the league's unwillingness to cave into the notion of ignoring its own rules for purposes of putting on a better show.

That is the best way to put it IMO, and I wish I had said it that way. I'm glad the NBA at least took one stance towards the integrity of the game and not just towards "sports entertainment".

[FromWayDowntown]

No harm, no foul. Better to punish acts of violence after the fact that permanently alter the complexion of a series.

So wait until there's an injury, rather than taking affirmative steps to prevent that possibility?

I'll steal this from another source I read this morning, but with the rules as they are, it's relatively easy to avoid larger fights. The three officials can usually take care of the 2 combatants and, at the very least, there are only 8 other players to be concerned with. There are no extra guys flying in from out of the play with the opportunity to Rudy T someone who wasn't accounting for him. It makes sense that the league wants to keep fighting to a minimum and it makes sense that one way to do that is to limit the number of potential combatants.

With that said, the league will undoubtedly change the rule this summer and the rule change will, almost undoubtedly, incorporate some determination of intent to become involved in the altercation. But, still, that allows for some proactive effort to avoid 24-player fights and to punish those who intend to become involved in the fight. It's better to prevent than to simply punish, I think.

[Findog]

now that was the stupidest thing I've read in the last 20 minutes. You're somehow finding a way to top yourself, keep it up.

"I can't make an argument, so I'll just resort to ad hominem attacks."

You keep that up, and from this point forward, I'll just ignore you, since you have nothing to add to the conversation. HAND.

[ducks]

again then players would break the rule all the time in the playoffs
knowing they would get punished in game one of 82

[Kevin Blackistone]

If the League is extremely image conscious then they wouldn't decide a playoff series in the commisioner's office. They wouldn't ins ute a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense. Amare and Diaw broke a rule, fine. Let them sit out their season opener for 07-08. But don't tell me that Stern and Jackson had this scenario in mind when they crafted it as a response to Pacers-Pistons. The correct thing to do would've been to say "Wow! We never anticipated a situation like this when we ins uted this rule, and to be fair, it's helped the referees keep order. But we can't in good conscience continue to enforce it in such an ironclad manner."

So what happens when the next time Stoudemire runs out on the court to actually see if Nash is OK and get's leveled by TD who thinks Stoudemire is running up on him and he therefore acts in self defense? You think the league wants to deal with that ? That's why the punishment is strict, because the possible outcomes of letting people rush the court are really bad.

[Kevin Blackistone]

"I can't make an argument, so I'll just resort to ad hominem attacks."

You keep that up, and from this point forward, I'll just ignore you, since you have nothing to add to the conversation. HAND.

Are you reading my posts? I am adding to the conversation, I'm just taking the time to with you as well.

[Findog]

Seriously, the rule is in place to keep combatants on the bench from charging the court as well as keep peace keepers on the bench from being mistaken as combatants and retaliated against. If you lessen the punishment, people won't take it seriously. The rule is fine as is, and 99.9% of the NBA has no problem following it. When was the last time this was an issue in a playoff game? Stoudemire and Diaw are just that stupid.

Fine, if an infraction occurs during the playoffs, roll it over to the next regular season, where it's a 10 game suspension without salary, as opposed to one game and $35K.

[violentkitten]

No harm, no foul. Better to punish acts of violence after the fact that permanently alter the complexion of a series.

better to allow a situation to escalate so that the probability of a significant player injury is increased? um, no.

[FromWayDowntown]

Fine, if an infraction occurs during the playoffs, roll it over to the next regular season, where it's a 10 game suspension without salary, as opposed to one game and $35K.

But then you're punishing the same conduct very differently just because of when it occurs.

It's funny to me that after years of hearing fans scream for consistency from the league, those same fans are now upset because the league is actually being consistent in its application of a rule that has always been enforced in this manner.

[violentkitten]

But then you're punishing the same conduct very differently just because of when it occurs.

It's funny to me that after years of hearing fans scream for consistency from the league, those same fans are now upset because the league is actually being consistent in its application of a rule that has always been enforced in this manner.

yeah no . i guess a +15 FT disparity or whatever it was in game 4 gives one a sense of en lement.

[Findog]

So what happens when the next time Stoudemire runs out on the court to actually see if Nash is OK and get's leveled by TD who thinks Stoudemire is running up on him and he therefore acts in self defense?

I have no problem with fining and suspending guys for leaving the bench, but if it occurs during a playoff series, roll it over to the regular season and give it some teeth with regard to more games to sit out and more money to fork over. The rule has been beneficial in helping the refs keep order, but Stern and Jackson couldn't have anticipated a situation such as this when they implemented it. They need to give themselves a certain degree of flexibility in meting out punishments, because by following precedent, they have swung the series to the Spurs over a sequence that was initiated by an Horry cheapshot.

If I care about my product, I'm not going to diminish it.

[Kevin Blackistone]

Fine, if an infraction occurs during the playoffs, roll it over to the next regular season, where it's a 10 game suspension without salary, as opposed to one game and $35K.

That takes away all of the consistency in how the rule is enforced because you're making allowances for when the violation occurs.


Make it a 50 game suspension and all lost salary is directly deposited into my bank account and you have a deal.

[Findog]

But then you're punishing the same conduct very differently just because of when it occurs.

There are no good alternatives here: Enforce the rule here with consistency and you've degraded your oncourt product. Or acknowledge this is a ed up situation and from here on out, grant yourself a degree of flexibility in meting out punishment. I'd say the latter is preferable.

[Kevin Blackistone]

I have no problem with fining and suspending guys for leaving the bench, but if it occurs during a playoff series, roll it over to the regular season and give it some teeth with regard to more games to sit out and more money to fork over. The rule has been beneficial in helping the refs keep order, but Stern and Jackson couldn't have anticipated a situation such as this when they implemented it. They need to give themselves a certain degree of flexibility in meting out punishments, because by following precedent, they have swung the series to the Spurs over a sequence that was initiated by an Horry cheapshot.

If I care about my product, I'm not going to diminish it.

That's actually a good argument, but I still think you have to punish the player when the violation occurs. In your argument, what happens to Horry in the event he retires after this season? There would be no next year to give him a 10 gamer.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a zero tolerance rule. For better or worse, Stern was brought in to clean up the NBA and create a product that appeals to wealthy conservative middle age guys because thats where the money is. There was a time that most of you don't even remember when the NBA's image was that the players were coke snorting thugs and ratings and TV money were going down the tubes. "Middle class" viewers were deserting the NBA in droves. They spend years and millions on creating a squeaky clean image for their players and their "work in the community" and they don't want the public to see their "good citizens" slugging away at each other at center court on national TV.

Get over it.

[MadDog73]

Findog:

Are you suggesting changes to rule for the future, or changing the rule now?

Because the NBA can't change the punishment now. But your ideas are interesting, if they want to make the rule more complex.

I think Stern likes the simplicity of it, so there's no room to argue: You leave the bench, you're out. No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs.