Reply With Quote
I don't see a reason to change it anymore than it already has been.
believe you? and what leg do you have to stand on?
I don't see a reason to change it anymore than it already has been.
It needs a provision for certain cir stances.
What cir stances?
As I've said before, the wording needs to be changed to allow for some leniency in the event that the player leaving the bench doesn't get involved in the "altercation". I don't see how this would diminish it's impact.
I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone. More likely, they impulsively reacted to the hard foul, which then escalated into an "altercation".
In the space of a few seconds, it went from "WTF? He just clobbered my point guard!" to "Oh crap, it's a fight! I need to get out of here."
By then, it was too late.
As the rule stands now, it was correctly enforced.
So how will players running onto the court signal their intent to the league?As I've said before, the wording needs to be changed to allow for some leniency in the event that the player leaving the bench doesn't get involved in the "altercation". I don't see how this would diminish it's impact.
I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone. More likely, they impulsively reacted to the hard foul, which then escalated into an "altercation".
Fax?
Email?
Candygram?
It would be a whole lot easier for coaches to make sure their players are smart enough to obey the rule as written than it would be to try and rewrite the rule into some nebulous mess.
I still believe he's an arrogant little prick, but outside of Pete Rozelle, you're right.
So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney.
So, you don't have a problem with the way the rule was enforced, but you're in favor of amending the rule so that there is more room for interpretation, more subjectivity, correct?
I highly doubt that Stoudemire and Diaw were initially intending to slug someone
How do you know? You live in their heads?
I propose the rule changes to allow the player to perhaps step onto the court during an altercation since it may be the natural result of jumping up or being pushed from behind a little, but if they move away from the bench area toward the altercation, they should be fined and suspended one game.
They could have written a rule that didn't impose an automatic one game suspension for its violation.
They could have, but they didn't.
if they leave the bench during an altercation, then no I wouldn't be.So if Duncan & Bowen walk a few feet toward an altercation that they didn't start nor finish and get suspended for a key playoff game (or any game for that matter), you'd be fine with that? It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances? I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation? Maybe they can't...I'm not an attorney
Rule is a rule.
Deal with it.
Actually, I stand by my initial statement when this whole thing broke.
Letter of the rule: Suspensions.
Spirit of the rule: Talking to, minimal fine.
Yes. They know the rules.Considering why the rule is there in the first place, no.It wouldn't make you think that the rule is kinda silly is some instances?I haven't heard one good suggestion yet.I just think they can write that rule to leave a little leeway for a more common sense interpretation?
If they were to break the rule, then yes, I'd be fine with that.
Now show me the altercation in the second quarter.
No it needs to be applied with more common sense. These players are not robots. They saw thier point guard go down with a cheapshot. At the very least the rule should allow for them to show some reaction. If they compose themselves and get back to the bench let it be.
It does.
Doesn't matter. Amare was intending to do "something" but he was restrained and never made it out there.
The league can't assume that his intent was hostile any more than it can assume it was to be a peace maker or just see what had happened to Nash.
The player should be assumed to be a non-participant until he actually participates.
Of course most Spurs fans would be decrying the decision if the situation was reverse...
and most Suns fans would be supporting it.
Again, that would not change the fact: Stern runs the NBA tight. As basketball fans, we have to deal.
I never even brought that up.
You just happened to choose Duncan and Bowen?
Stern said otherwise. He said the rule is automatic with the suspension.
After leaving the bench area.Doesn't matter. Amare was intending to do "something" but he was restrained and never made it out there.Exactly, that's why he's supended.The league can't assume that his intent was hostile any more than it can assume it was to be a peace maker or just see what had happened to Nash.Leaving the bench area is participating.The player should be assumed to be a non-participant until he actually participates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions