Reply With Quote
You would then be in the tiny minority of Spurs fans making the same argument as you are now and you know it.
It just sort of reminds me of people who about mandatory minimums for drug violations, or parole violators.
Very easy fix to the situation. If you don't want to pay a penalty, dont do a crime.
The only people who give a about what the penalties are and argue the validity are the people who are breaking the rules.
I dont even know the slightest on what the penalty is for people caught with a bag of weed. I could care less if it was 10 minutes or 10 years in jail. I don't smoke weed.
Im sure most of the Spurs and/or league dont really give a about the rule suspending players for leaving a bench to fight. They don't fight, so it doesn't really matter to them.
the only people worried about this are the perps. The suns and their new found bandwagon of fans who have been eagerly searching for years for a cause to validate their disdain for the spurs. This definately beats the first reason, the fact we usually dismantle your team and ruin your chances to win a le.
do the crime = do the time....thats it...
You would then be in the tiny minority of Spurs fans making the same argument as you are now and you know it.
So you are going to change your penalties based on talent? Good luck with that in a union environment, not to mention the one thing all the no-suspension supporters is trying to uphold in this incident, fairness.
People do care about felony punishments for misdemeanor offenses, as well they should. If you jaywalk or litter, should you be thrown in Guantanamo? This is a weak argument.I dont even know the slightest on what the penalty is for people caught with a bag of weed. I could care less if it was 10 minutes or 10 years in jail. I don't smoke weed.
The NBA union is not like a typical union. Diaw and Amare would die for that option today, and the 12th men would back them up.
Because it encourages rule-breaking during the playoffs.It's not the only one, but it's a deterrent to fighting.How is the leave the bench rule the only one subject to zero tolerance?
Don't leave the bench area during an altercation.
What is so difficult about that?
I would frankly be surprised if I was in the minority. I wouldn't be happy about it, especially about the stupidity of the players. This rule has been in place for over a decade, and I am sure were repeated to the players over and over and over, and yet two Suns player couldn't grasp it.
But on the other hand, should I be surprised that a player like Amare, who couldn't stay on the court by supressing is macho instinct of blocking every shot, is the very same person who didn't have the self control to not step on teh court in this situation?
The NBA union would never accept 10 game suspensions for a simple leaving the bench infraction.
Is there a law saying that? Honest question, because that would be quite idiotic.
After this incident, I'm sure they would welcome giving teams the option to take a light penalty during the playoffs or a much stiffer one the following regular season.
We are dealing with a union, not two individuals in the union. The union is not set up to protect superstar players, but every single person within that union.
It was in response to a poster saying we shouldn't worry about disproportionately harsh punishments because you shouldn't do the crime in the first place.
People do care about felony punishments for misdemeanor offenses, as well they should. If you jaywalk or litter, should you be thrown in Guantanamo? This is a weak argument.
I could honestly careless what happens to you. If in fact the law says, you litter and you get thrown in guantanamo...and someone told me about it, id think "whoa, thats hardcore", good thing i dont litter or jaywalk... then id just go about my business...
Now if the law says...1 mile over the speed limit = 1 year in federal prison...id throw a fit....why??? because i break this rule!! all the time!! would i wait till i got caught?!?! no, no...id argue this daily untill it got changed, because i know it could affect me.
Why is that? You are drawing arguments out of the air indicating union leaders would think the exact way you do.
Should the rule be subjected to change in the future? This one could be up for argument, and I am not here to argument for or against it.
But there is no way that this rule should be changed to accommodate the need of two players who could not follow a simple rule.
You still haven't addressed the "fairness" aspect of it in regards to players who will no longer be with their teams the next year.
You've just invalidated your argument, which was previously that we shouldn't worry about disproportionately harsh punishments for misdemeanor offenses. But when it comes to something that affects you, we should all take the glorious Gandhi/MLK martyr routine. Pick a lane, please. "Don't do the crime if you don't like the time" or "If it's wrong, make it right."
What's fair about Amare and Diaw sitting out tonight? If the rollover option as avaialable and they change addresses before November, that is something a new team will have to consider before acquiring them. A scrub player will still sit out games in the playoffs and a new team won't think twice about acquiring them. A star player is still going to be valuable to his team if he's only available for 70 games a year instead of 82.
As for a 'team' not getting punished for something a player did in their colors during the previous playoffs, how is that unfair?
My argument is summed up in two sentences, and ill admit i can go off with dumb analogies quite often.
If there is a rule, dont break it unless you plan to pay the consequences.
If you think the consequences are inapropriate, work to change them, but not try and selectively enforce them when it matters to you.
If you (the suns) think this rule is ridiculous. Why weren't you working to get it repealed for the past 10 years? Why wait untill its too late?
My guess is because it really is only ridiculous now that it is affecting you.
They broke the rule. They are paying the price for breaking the rule. That's fair.
I think the lack of discretion in doling out the punishment is ridiculous. I would feel that way if the shoe was on the other foot and the Spurs were getting screwed or if my team was still playing.If you think the consequences are inapropriate, work to change them, but not try and selectively enforce them when it matters to you.
I don't root for the Suns. Actually, I want the Spurs to advance.If you (the suns) think this rule is ridiculous.
It doesn't "affect me" if the Spurs win this series. I hate both teams. What is ridiculous is that this series will not be decided at fullstrength for both teams.My guess is because it really is only ridiculous now that it is affecting you
If a player like Horry were retiring, it leaves the option wide open to intentionally injure another player if he knows he can get away with it. Fair huh?
If you intentionally injure somebody, you can get sued in civil court -- see Washington, Tomjanovich.
If you intentionally leave the bench area during an altercation, you can get suspended -- see Amare, Boris.
It's fair because they broke a rule that was clear cut and dry that they new about before hand. If I KNOW every time I speed I'm going to get a ticket, I'd be stupid to speed. If I KNOW that if I break even the slightest law I WILL get punished, I don't do it. They knew in advance the rule they broke and the punishment for it and they still did it. That's their problem and it's fair in that regard. Just like Horry's suspension for 2 games in fair even though other players have gotten less for a bigger affront. It's fair to the rule.
The application of the rule and the resulting suspensions is fair, because of all of this. It's not like this is new to them. The rule and the penalty have both been well established for longer than either Amare or Boris have been in the NBA. It's a pathetic claim to say it's unfair to enforce it on them.
As far as the team thing. A team is partially responsible for it's players. The Suns did not teach Amare and Boris enough discipline, so the suspension punishes the team as well as the player. The team should have a penalty, as should the player, and in most cir stances a suspension works.
Would you complain if someone used your option to play against the Mavs, the Mavs lost when they would have won had he served the suspension then, and then that player retired before serving his suspension? Would you deem that as "fair".
As I said, the current punishment is fair because the conditions for getting it and what the penalty is are clearly defined and have been for over a decade. It's stupid to claim it isn't.
Complain the rule isn't fair if you want, and hopefully it'll change to allow some reaction from players as long as they don't escalate, but you can't say something is not fair when every aspect of it has been clearly established since these two kids were in high school. They practically grew up watching the NBA under this rule, so there is just no excuse for it.
And it would still be fair to delay that punishment until November.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
