Randy Galloway: Has letter of the law opened door to thugs?

[clambake]

They get the rule Chump. They don't get the interpretation. What people see is mainly what they look for.

Once again, thanks for the phony "blaming the refs" tag. Never happened.

[ChumpDumper]

They get the rule Chump.

No they don't. They are trying to make an exception for intent, which is simply not there.

They don't get the interpretation.

Don't leave the bench area during an altercation. There is no interpretation necessary.

What people see is mainly what they look for.

People haven't looked.

Once again, thanks for the phony "blaming the refs" tag. Never happened.

Pardon me for not knowing your entire posting history. If you don't whine about the refs and Mavs, fine - I believe you. However, your menstrual flow about the bench rule and the Spurs' rep hasn't ebbed after a week, and your arguments calling for selective enforcement of black-letter NBA rules as chosen by popular internets opinion are ludicrous.

[clambake]

I've said all along that I'm a fan of the spurs and all their international players. I don't like the perception anymore than you.

PS. It hasn't been a week yet, so pay closer attention to my flow schedule.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, you're the one acknowledging the flow....

[VinnyTestesVerde]

No greater whiner than Mark Cuban. Except for this guy.

A rival local sports radio station (1310 The Ticket) here in Dallas has been known to refer to him as "Grandpa Urine"...

[clambake]

I guess it's hard to find humor when you're savagely trying to defend a position.

[ChumpDumper]

Savagely?

All anyone has to do to "defend" this position is say stay near the bench.

No one who has ed about this rule has proposed a new rule that makes any sense.

[clambake]

I think it would be great for the spurs to win this series in game 7.

That's my position. Is that such a bad thing to hope for?

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess it's hard to find humor when you're savagely trying to defend a position.

"Savagely?"

The crowd screaming for Stern to ignore the rules strikes me as far more irrational in this debate.

[ChumpDumper]

I think it would be great for the spurs to win this series in game 7.

That's my position. Is that such a bad thing to hope for?

Savage.

[judaspriestess]

Yes, the rule should stand, except there should also be a common sense application.

another . in other words bend the rules if you can, to benefit the idiots.


This folks is why stupid people are following suit. Like blind sheep following the bellweather to the edge of a cliff and falling off. What gullible people Americans are.
The attention span of a typical fan is about 20 minutes. So now what all these morons are hearing is, Spurs are dirty, Spurs are dirty, Spurs are dirty.
And these dopes just repeat the mantra. Beating the war drum against the Spurs without rationalizing the correctness of the situation.

Since when were the Spurs ever as a team considered dirty?
BORING AND DIRTY are oxymorons, they cannot co-exist. If you are dirty then you create excitement by crossing the line on a regular basis, breaking rules, being a rebel. If anything it should be considered "sexy" what Horry did, you know that badboy everyone secretly desires or wishes they could be.

If anything the Spurs are giving the NBA a much needed lift in ratings. Its been a while since a team has garnered so much attetion. Those damn thugs

[fridge]

I'm only echoing the sentiments of 95% of NBA fans across the country. Written rules are broken all the time, and with intelligence they're altered to reflect what is fair and just.

mate, you have a very basic view of the reason stoudemire and diaw were suspended. if anything, the nba has used more intelligence in the decision than "95% of NBA fans across the country" (thanks for taking the time to ask them all) can appreciate.

the reason why discretion is not used in this rule is very simple, the rule would be worthless if it wasn't strictly applied.

the purpose of the rule is to avoid fights and brawls. it achieves its purpose by making sure players understand they cannot enter the fray when a potential fight might break out.

there is absolutely no reason for an nba player to enter the fray from the bench. diaw and stoudemire claim they just wanted to see how nash was, but they are not medical professionals, they would not be able to help.

this is fair and just because all players and coaches know that the rule will be strictly applied, no matter who they are. what would be 'unfair' and 'unjust' would be a situation where the NBA makes exceptions where marquee or superstar players are involved.

exceptions opens the doors for other players to appeal, with ridiculous excuses that would erode the consistency and effectiveness of the rule. Oh, my coach says i would never fight, i am a nice guy, i don't deserve to be suspended. oh, i am a superstar who really just wanted to check into the game. oh, he started it, it's just not fair.

this type of rule warrants no discretion. It is completely different from a situation where the NBA reviews whether a player purposely intended to elbow another and whether a foul was flagrant or reckless.

let me put it to you another way. would you even care if it was james jones who was suspended rather than stoudemire or diaw? i suspect you wouldn't have been bandying around words such as 'fair' and 'just' if it was a scrub who got suspended... which probably points to the fact you're thinking with your heart and not your head.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why must rules be changed for the 0.2% of millionaire players who can't follow them? Basketball is a game bounded by rules. Deal with it.

[clambake]

Hang on to that. Rule or no rule, it hasn't seemed to change the perception. It is the exact same perception you would chime if the situation were reversed. Serioulsy, I hope they win in 7. SPURS IN 7

[ChumpDumper]

Why should fan perception matter in enforcing the rules?

[violentkitten]

Why should fan perception matter in enforcing the rules?

because popularity matters when your team hasn't made it all the way up that mountain.

[clambake]

I didn't say it did. Game 7 victory would end all this . Then the rest of the league could root for the spurs. The way it is now, they can't. Wouldn't be honorable.

[judaspriestess]

Hang on to that. Rule or no rule, it hasn't seemed to change the perception. It is the exact same perception you would chime if the situation were reversed. Serioulsy, I hope they win in 7. SPURS IN 7

Your perception is your reality, very true. Unfortunately weak people can very easily have their perception manipulated. This situation is a perfect example. Stern followed the "prime directive" based on logic not on emotion.
It is what it is.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say it did.

You said it should.

Then the rest of the league could root for the spurs.

They won't anyway, so who cares?

The way it is now, they can't. Wouldn't be honorable.

Yeah, all sports fans are gavely concerned with the honor when they demand that black-letter rules shouldn't apply to star players.

[Obstructed_View]

I didn't say it did. Game 7 victory would end all this . Then the rest of the league could root for the spurs. The way it is now, they can't. Wouldn't be honorable.

So you want to invalidate a victory just because two players from the other team broke the rules. The rest of the league won't root for the Spurs because they don't root for the Spurs and they would rather see the rules of the sport overlooked in order to see the Spurs lose.

And they (you) can't even man the up and admit that they (you) are doing it.

[clambake]

You said it should.

You're the one that said it should, not me. I'm more inclined to focus on the honorable aspect of victory.

[clambake]

On another note, what's wrong with hoping for game 7 and dispell the perception of theft?

[ChumpDumper]

You're the one that said it should, not me.

What the are you talking about?

I'm more inclined to focus on the honorable aspect of victory.

Which is why you spent the entire thread talking about how the opinion of ignorant fans should matter when it comes to enforcing the rules.

And the rest of the time saying a Spurs trophy this season would be unconditionally tainted.

[Obstructed_View]

You're the one that said it should, not me. I'm more inclined to focus on the honorable aspect of victory.

What's dishonorable about winning fair and square, again?

[ChumpDumper]

On another note, what's wrong with hoping for game 7 and dispell the perception of theft?

It's an erroneous preception, so there's no need.