Reply With Quote
It certainly beats answering the question you've been ducking for a week like a little .
totally.
It certainly beats answering the question you've been ducking for a week like a little .
Nice one. I'm sure this UV will love it.
argumentum ad personam
Well said.I am glad the suns are gone....and I am glad the jazz get the chance to play with the Spurs....we have been the thorn in the side of the Spurs in the 90's
I am hoping for a long and great series......it will be fun to watch two physical teams actually play.....without one crying the whole series.
Pwn3dum ad Suns um
Like your momma.
Actually, I was writing from perspective of OV with his lower IQ. But thanks for the critique, I'm sure he'll appreciate it.
No . It didn't even merit a first posting.Actually, I was writing from perspective of OV with his lower IQ.
Now go back to explaining why the rules shouldn't apply to your team.
Because they're special, they're stars and the league will make less money if the Suns lose the series.
What part of that don't you get? (to prevent anyone from saying anything, I am being sarcastic as my emoticons show)
You can be very funny...when your not trying.
And keep the "rule book" handy ( er...or...Sterns interpretation of it), cuz you'll be choking on it by the time it's all over. Live by the sword Mofo....
Last edited by UV Ray; 05-19-2007 at 06:53 PM.
I still think that it was biologically predestined that Amare leave the bench just at that moment, leaving his will helpless and irrelevant in the situation.
Or maybe it was gravitational force.
Look at this as an example of the survival of the fittest, a Darwinian process.
Those teams who count on players who do dumb things will not survive, given certain conditions.
I still think that it was biologically predestined that Amare leave the bench just at that moment, leaving his will helpless and irrelevant in the situation.
Or maybe it was gravitational force.
Look at this as an example of the survival of the fittest, a Darwinian process.
Those teams who count on players who do dumb things will not survive, given certain conditions.
It was those frickin magnets!
Rule Book doesn't need quotes because it is, in fact, a rule book. There was no interpretation needed. That's the funniest part. This is one of the least ambiguous rules in the book, especially when it comes down to the penalty.
Stay near the bench and don't get suspended.
Sorry you think your star is such a savage that he can't control his instincts. That's sad.
Exactly. I've been reading a lot of their comments and it seems they feel they just haven't had a fair shake of luck over the past 3 seasons.
For example:
2005 - Joe Johnson's broken orbital bone
2006 - Raja Bell's torn calf muscle
2007 - Suspensions of Stoudamire and Diaw
Privately, some of the Suns players and coaches wonder aloud what could have happened had these events not transpired. In fact, D'Antoni expressed disappointment in "not knowing" what his team might have accomplished were it not for these events.
Personally, I think that organization is so desperate for a le that they often seek ways to "soft soak" their shortcomings of their team. Part of their denial is publicly making excuses. All I can say is - that's life in the NBA.
As for the Spurs, it's all about the hardware. If someone wants to refer to the Spurs series wins as "tainted" or note them with an "asterisk", remember IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HARDWARE. No one ever remembers the journey or who comes is second. It about who gets to 16 wins first.
UV Ray, please stick around here long term. I love how you offer yourself up for routine ridicule and beatings. You are too much fun!
Look at the bright side. If it weren't for .4 (no NBA team before or since has scored in that amount of time) and the non-call on Duncan's put-back last year, the Spurs would be going for FIVE in a row.
Roger that Big Dave!
First you say that "There was no interpretation needed" and then you say that it "is one of the least ambiguous rules in the book". By you admitting that it is ambiguous, it is therefore logical for me to assume that it is open to interpretation, (qualified by your opinion of "in the least"). Be gracious and give Stern credit for a Spurs friendly interpretation of a rule that you said needed no interpretation.
The only interpretation needed is the definietion of the bench area, since the rule was changed to allow for a guy like Patrick Ewing to stick the toes of his feet over the sideline, it's extremely clear the rule is not designed to allow players to sprint 20 feet from the bench. Amare and Boris removed the need to "interpret" the rule.
Be gracious and admit your players were dumbasses for not staying near the bench.
Vicinity is subject to interpretation as are all precedents defining interpretation. Your argument is illogical, Stern's interpretationis heavy handed and the results draconian.
Stay near the bench, don't get suspended.
Pretty simple.
Near and far are subjective and open to interpretation--Bert and Ernie 1977
Ok, so you want the league to determine 20 feet away from the bench to be the immediate bench area. That's your whole argument.
Spurs received a favorable interp from the league which increased their chances of winning. To deny that is to deny reality.
You want 20 feet away form the bench to be the declared the immediate vicinity of the bench.
That's stupid.
To deny this is to deny reality.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions