Reply With Quote
Duncan leaving the bench area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39nR...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKd...eature=related
Since Spurs fans keep bringing up the Suns/Spurs series.
Duncan leaving the bench area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39nR...eature=related
Good thing too since Elson and Nash were about to really throw it down any second.
It should not matter according to Emperor Stern the league does not have leeway for the rule. So where was Duncan's 1 game suspension? Even Bowen realized what might have happen when he came and drag Duncan back to the bench.
There's no altercation, son.
The rule does not allowed for intent to be considered. As such where was Duncan's suspension? Even Bowen realized what Duncan was doing and pulled him back to the bench.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76057
Now what day did Game 3 occur?
Link to the rule?
The league knew this rat was fixing games and let him work playoff games. The stink will never come off the Spurs alleged 4th le.
Great response.
I don't know how I can recover.
Exactly so if there is no altercation, there can be no suspension. Basically you can run out on the court as long as no one is fighting. It's a stupid rule and should be changed but at the moment, its still a rule.The rule does not allowed for intent to be considered. As such where was Duncan's suspension? Even Bowen realized what Duncan was doing and pulled him back to the bench.
I do think that any player who steps on to the court while the ball is in play should be t-ed up. You can come on during time outs and stoppages but not while the ball is in play.
BTW....why is this still being discussed? What happened can't be changed. The results of the playoffs are final and the league, no matter how much some Suns fans want it, is not going to take back the Spurs trophy or apply an asterisk or anything else. Can those on both sides who are still beating this long dead horse focus on this season?
Let it go! Why bring up bad memories? Is a new season lets focus on that. Everyone knows the Suns got screwed by some of the calls and the suspensions if Spurs fans admit it or not cost the Suns the series. I have a feeling if the teams meet again in the playoffs the officials won't let the Spurs get away with bush league tactics.
Me too.I have a feeling if the teams meet again in the playoffs the officials won't let the Spurs get away with winning the series
There was about as much true "altercation" on the Elson/Jones play as there was on the Nash/Horry play. Only difference: the league's subjective judgement. Convenient for the Spurs, bad for the Suns. But more importantly, as I have pointed out before, it's idiotic and self-destructive for Spurs fans to laugh it off as Amare and Diaw being stupid ... by that argument, Bowen & Duncan are just as stupid too for leaving the bench. Only difference is they are spared by the league's decision.
I ask you this: did Duncan & Bowen think there was an altercation brewing when they came off the bench? No? Then they must be really stupid, huh? Leaving the bench like dumb- s for no apparent reason at all. Amare & Diaw at least had a reason, right? Because there was an "altercation" and they were responding to a cheapshot. But Duncan & Bowen are apparently re ed drooling zombies who just pop up off the bench and wander around onto the floor at random ... cause they certainly were not responding to any sort of altercation, cause there wasn't any. Right?
Bottom line, the rule is NOT black and white with no wiggle room for interpretation --despite the bull explanations of the league. It's ALL about how the league chooses to INTERPRET the rule. It makes ALL the difference, and the problem is with their bull arbitrary ad-hoc interpretation of the word "altercation" on the fly. That is the real problem.
I pretty much agree (including that earlier conversation you had with samikeyp) with what you say and I think they should change the rule. But he was just putting up a blunt argument so I felt like giving him a blunt answer. If he had at least 1/3 of knowledge and reason as you I would respect him more and we could probably have some mature conversation. You're quickly becoming an above average poster when compared to other Suns fans.
Duncan and Bowen didn't come off the bench because of a possible altercation that might have happened...they stepped onto the court protesting a call, which is stupid and deserving of technicals, IMO.
Actually I think the problem is that the rule is too vague. It says that you cannot leave the bench if an altercation occurs. Well, what is an altercation? It can be anything from two players jawing at each other to punches being thrown. I think the problem that there is too much wiggle room. I understand they want to avoid fights and I agree with that but if you are going to target altercations, you have to define what that is going to mean as far as the players are concerned.
It is a rule and rules have to be enforced but they have to be enforced uniformly and consistently and to do that, sometimes you have to change them.
Co-sign.I pretty much agree (including that earlier conversation you had with samikeyp) with what you say and I think they should change the rule. But he was just putting up a blunt argument so I felt like giving him a blunt answer. If he had at least 1/3 of knowledge and reason as you I would respect him more and we could probably have some mature conversation. You're quickly becoming an above average poster when compared to other Suns fans.
DannyB, you might wanna keep your buttons from getting too easily pressed, though. As you've probably noticed, intentionally getting a rise out of people is practically a way of life here.
Agreed. If you keep this up DannyB I think you're going to have to take a seat on me.
I can't wait for the 12/14 game. Maybe some Suns fans will let that series go a little bit if the Suns go into San Antonio and come out with a convincing win.
The rule DOES actually include a necessary consideration of intent, at least in the way the league chooses, on a situational basis, to declare a particular incident an "altercation." I mean, seriously, what the IS an "altercation." I've searched the official league rule book, and there is no clarification. It's apparently assumed that the referees are sufficient to judge by commonsense or clairvoyance or something, what an altercation is. Is it when a player gets in another player's face? Is it a particularly hard foul (e.g. Horry on Nash)? Is it only an altercation when actual punches are thrown?
Seriously, they mention "altercations" and "fighting" in the official rule book, but there is never any definition. This is part of the problem with the NBA rules, both as they are written and enforced. If you read the rule book, you'll find that there is very little definition, and most interpretation of the rules is left to the refs under the so-called elastic clause (anything not covered specifically in the rule book falls under the purview of the refs).
You stole my avatar you . Oh well, you already stole my butt impression on your face, so I guess it's ok.
Indeed. And there is the source of the taint that the Spurs fans on SpursTalk will never admit too.
Or, as a concerned NBA fan, you can go with the taint placed upon the series by the bull /inconsistent/hypocritical ruling about players coming off the bench.
Or you can go with the overall taint placed upon the series by the fact that the Spurs alone among NBA teams are allowed to ing foul & hack & hold & grab & cheapshot the everliving ing out of their opponents like no other team in recent memory ... not even the Pistons ... No, I'm not talking about the "Bad Boy" Pistons who were straight-up thugs. Wait a minute ... nevermind ... the Spurs ARE straight-up thugs just like the "Bad Boys." Nevermind.
I almost agree with you. Past can't be changed for sure. You're right. Trophies can't be taken away. But the asterisk is ALREADY there ... not retro-actively applied. Too many factors to avoid the asterisk. Crooked ref, rigged games (possibly due to crooked ref ... we don't know for sure yet conclusively), truly bad officiating (I know everyone in SA thinks the series was refereed perfect, but you are in the minority among nationwide observers of the series, not just Suns fans), a horribly botched decision on the suspensions due to an idiotic rule poorly & inconsistently applied - e.g. Bowen/Duncan off the bench too ...
Sorry. The asterisk is there. It's almost as permanent as the branded Barry Bonds home-run ball. The series was tainted for a lot of people, not all of them Suns fans. Whether you disagree or not, that is the general perception and has become as firmly believed as fact as the bull Roswell alien crash.
Thanks. I surely try. Perhaps early on in my time on this blog my hatred (with all due respect) for the Spurs made my posts seem extreme; but what can you really expect from a Suns troll posting on a hostile blog ... not just a hostile blog, even, but the blog of the Suns' hated rival. But thanks for the re-assurance that I make sense about a few things at least some of the time to Spurs' fans.I pretty much agree (including that earlier conversation you had with samikeyp) with what you say and I think they should change the rule. But he was just putting up a blunt argument so I felt like giving him a blunt answer. If he had at least 1/3 of knowledge and reason as you I would respect him more and we could probably have some mature conversation. You're quickly becoming an above average poster when compared to other Suns fans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
