Reply With Quote
OMG I'm still laughing.
You must be as old as I am to quote that!
Good times!
Go read the rule. There is already enough leeway for "a reaction."
OMG I'm still laughing.
You must be as old as I am to quote that!
Good times!
Actually, most people on here were fully expecting Duncan to be suspended for one game following his incident and statements about Joey Crawford .
Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?
Because that was great, too.
I think that was Jim Gray.Wasn't that Dan Patrick that was interviewing Stern at halftime of one of the games, and DP kept asking questions even though play had resumed...and Stern basically told him to STFU so that fans could enjoy the game and walked off?
Because that was great, too.
But, as Stern said, the point of the rule -- as it currently exists -- is to make sure that there are no grey areas. If a player is on the floor engaged in an altercation and sees a guy in another jersey come towards him, he: (1) doesn't know if that guy was on the floor before the incident or not; and (2) might be inclined to Tomjanovich the guy, which is likely to only exacerbate an already bad situation.
The best way to avoid aggravation is to keep everyone on or near the bench. The league's owners decided, when they made the rule, that there should be no grey area when it came to punishment. Break the rule and you're suspended. Now that Suns fans (and the national media that adores them) are realizing what the effects of the rule are, there's a sudden clamor to change the rule. That's fine, if the owners think it's reasonable. But for now, the rule is the rule is the rule.
Spurs fans know this series is far from over, lay off the crack pipe.
It might be hard to believe, but yeah. I wasn't even thinking about that other incident as I never even saw it.
I guess my point is that I really find it hard to believe that most of you would be fine with how the rule is written ( if it was all against the Spurs in the exact same situation). I'm 100% certain that most Spurs fans would be all upset about it.
Actually, it could be more clearly defined. What exactly is the "vicinity of the bench"?
That phrase by itself is ambiguous.
Not more subjectivity, just a broader scope of possible penalty. It's the hardline automatic suspension that's the problem.
As it's written right now, once a player moves away from the "vicinity of the bench" what's his incentive to back off? Why shouldn't he just say, "Well, I'm already suspended, may as well get my money's worth" and the clobber someone in an opposing jersey?
dan patrick is a ing dumbass. way to go stern...
you're grasping at straws dude
I agree with that. But I also agree with Stu Jackson's contention this morning that 20-25 feet from the bench is not within the vicinity of the bench.
His incentive to back off is the possibility of even harsher penalties. The Artest precedent still looms and I don't think it's inconceivable that the league would impose that sort of a penalty upon a player who leaves the bench and starts throwing punches at guys in opposing jerseys. It might not be 73 games, but I'd think that doing what you propose would result in substantially more than a 1 game suspension. And I think one way to be sure that there isn't any concern for that is consistently applying a one-game suspension for leaving the bench, without any wiggle room to consider other cir stances. It's generally a better thing, I think, to keep players out of altercations.
I'm saying that once search is re-activated, go find our threads about Joey Crawford.
I'll give it to you that a lot of Spurs fans would knee-jerk and do that, but not all of them.
Believe it or not, there are a number of intelligent Spurs fans on this board
The only way to be less ambiguous is to paint more lines on the floor. Or go back to the original rule. Do you really want that?
Being upset about it, and putting the blame on the opposition is two different things. Which seems to be the stances of most of the national media, and most Sun's fans.
Ahhh ... they are all starting to look alike to me.
I didn't say all of them but I think most would. I agree that there are many intelligent Spurs fans on this board.
Am I?
It amazes me how many of you are so adamantly defending the rule to the death. There doesn't have to be a "right" and a "wrong". IMO, the rule should be changed.
Clearly, I'm not alone here. Others feel as I do.
And as far as "why now", it just happens to be a very relevant topic in light of recent events. Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.
In its amended form, it's fine.Who says everyone was fine with it until this happened? I've always thought it was too black and white.
What he said . . . and he is a Dallas fan
That just goes with the territory.
I'm just not buying anyone that thinks the rule (as written) is fair. I understand and agree that the suspensions should have taken place with the way the rule is currently written.
I just heard a robert horry quote on the ticket where he said that the only reason he got suspended two games was because he hard fouled steve nash, he said he was the poster boy of the NBA. Damn rob is getting awnry in his old age.
I know the above post was random but i did not want to start a new thread about what horry said.
we could easily train a chimpanzee to do the same...
still doesn't forgive the fact that the NBA is starting to look like the WWE
fire david stern...the only people still protecting this "rule" are spurs fans...not all...but the only ones. And they are supporting it for the obvious reason, to help them win the game.
change is needed...and needed soon
Then why do spend so much time arguing over the point.
You believe the suspensions are fair.
'Nuff said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions