Just one? Okay -- here's one -- Game 3 of the 1999 Western Conference Finals. In that game, Tim Duncan (who was already the Spurs superstar) played 20 minutes at Portland in a game in which he ended up with 5 fouls.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...blazers_game3/
Don't tell me that Stoudemire now is a bigger star than Duncan was in 1999. Duncan was First Team All-NBA that season, First Team All-Defense, and 3rd in the MVP voting.
In any event, it's good to know that you're on record as supporting the star system and believing that officials
should look the other way when superstars commit fouls.
Unless, of course, you call two early fouls because said player actually commits two early fouls. Here's what I don't get about this whole argument -- the two calls that Donaghy put on Stoudemire early were both clearly fouls. There would have been screams of conspiracy had he chosen NOT to make those calls -- to say nothing of the fact that either of his comrades may have chosen to make those calls anyway. The calls that got Stoudemire in trouble in Game 3 weren't calls that were made by Donaghy.
In the first place, you have no evidence whatsoever that bad calls by Willard and Rush were anything other than incompetence. At this point, there's no proof that Donaghy or anyone else was giving money to any other officials. In fact, the evidence to this point makes it seem pretty evident that even Donaghy wasn't getting paid by the mob -- he was fixing games to protect himself and his family, but was making money only by placing bets on those games.
I don't disagree with that.
This is still the argument I don't understand -- how exactly were the Suns raped by Stern and Stu Jackson when those guys did nothing other than apply a rule in precisely the same way that it's always been applied? There was an altercation. Two Suns players left the bench area -- clearly left the bench area. The rule provides that if players leave the bench area during an altercation, they must be (not can be, not possibly) suspended for at least one game starting with the next game that team plays. It's been noted here forever, but had Stern chosen not to suspend Stoudemire and Diaw, he would have been making a first-time exception. There was no justification for that exception (other than the sense of some fans that the interests of the game are better served by making such exceptions in that single cir stance), particularly because just the night before, a very similar play occurred in Oakland when Derek Fisher got decked by Baron Davis. Somehow the Jazz players managed to stay on their bench during that altercation. Giving Stoudemire and Diaw a free pass would have, in some ways, been punishing the Jazz for sitting around and doing nothing during their situation. Besides, all of the other Suns were able to maintain their poise and stay on the bench. I don't get wanting to bail out the two fools who couldn't do that. They broke the rule, a single consequence has always applied to just that sort of breach, and the league imposed that consequence. Where's the "rape" in that? Oh, yeah -- I forgot that entertainment is more important than consistent application of a hard-and-fast rule.
The Donaghy thing is something else entirely. It's intellectually dishonest to lump that together with the consequences arising from the foolishness of Stoudemire and Diaw and to draw some broader picture.
Reply With Quote
