Reply With Quote
In an ideal world Phoenix wins game five, then we take the next two. Problem solved.
I call BS on you as a Spurs fan. Even the Suns aren't stupid enough to get caught up in trying to injure anyone, just Suns fans like you.
You had me going with your original question, but a Spurs fan worrying about Parker getting injured by the Suns wouldn't suddenly turn around and give me reasons why it's justified.
In an ideal world Phoenix wins game five, then we take the next two. Problem solved.
because if the league can be inconsistent with one ruling they certainly could've been inconsistent about another ruling had they wanted to...the league never has to explain their , they could've been inconsistent with either ruling but apparently they chose to be inconsistent about davis' elbow and horry's elbow and consistent with amare's dangerous foot on the court
anyway, i still don't see how davis can still play but horry can't. there is no consistency in the league, despite the b.s. they try to front with the "vicinity of the bench" infractions
How will we win w/o Horry in game 6?
Flagrants are a judgment call. Contact to the head can even be a judgment call. Leaving the bench isn't. They ain't my rules, and the situations aren't related. You don't leave the bench. Period. It's the clearest rule in the NBA rulebook.
Tolerating someone breaking a "zero tolerance" rule makes it no longer a "zero tolerance" rule.
Honestly, you think we can't win at home without Horry? At any rate I was speaking hypothetically, not stating what I think will actually happen.
The rule is there, and it's no surprise that the suspensions were handed down that way.
That being said, it is a real shame that the Suns will not be at full strength by missing their 2nd best and player and an important rotational player. However, a Spurs win will not be an asterisk, the Suns players knew the rules, the Spurs players knew the rules, Stoudemire and Diaw acted outside of the rules and will be penalized for it. Suspensions, like injuries, are part of the game. Besides, we have seen time and time again where a team missing an important player can play above their heads, and the opposing team just does not have an answer to the new game plan due to lack of scouting and preparation.
The question I have is, IF the Spurs got past the Horry 2-game suspension, would Pop still play him again in the rest of the playoffs?
It was, at worst, a stupid play that cost the Spurs the game. It also might have been an intentional foul gone way way wrong. The only way Pop keeps Horry out is if Horry suggests that he did it to hurt Nash and will keep on doing it.
The Amare suspension I can understand. He had to be restrained AFTER walking onto the court. But Diaw? Dude took a couple of steps and turned around on his own. Weak.
I have to think that if Diaw and Amare don't hop on the floor, Horry's suspension is 1 game max, and maybe nothing.
BENO TIME
I understand the difference and I understand the precedence for the rule. I spent lots of time in law school looking for loopholes and things are not so black and white when you have wording like "in the vicinity of the bench." I didn't expect that Diaw and Amare would get off scot free given that Stern rules with a blind hand but had the league wanted to they could've interpreted the whole vicinity wording differently. It's really not that clear at all when you have a league that refuses to talk about their rationale behind all the different suspensions handed out. Look, I didn't expect anything different from the result but I'm not going to run behind a rule and call it justice like some of the idiots here today. The spirit of the law (or rule) is what has been crushed to a pulp today.
If it is like that, then the NBA is a bigger joke than we all thought.
Pride always goeth before the fall. Hope that you're right, that the Suns are too placid to retaliate, and that we skate through unaffected. But, with them losing Amare, we may have cross the line. If they think all is lost, they might get a little more extreme than you anticipate. They might even think of it as the only way to save face.
I will take any win I can get and will not be ashamed.
i cant bother to keep reading, but this is my take:
as a fan i wish no one was suspended. nothing crazy happened. the officiating has been bad for both teams all series. rob got ejected. move on.
but rules are rules and some of you are really living in fantasy land if you think interpretation means ignoring the rule. the rule is meant to be harsh so everyone abides it. it was just exteremely stupid of them to get up, and i think the coaching staff is even more responsible for not getting to them earlier. sucks to be a suns fan right now but people were talking about this on the live telecast for a reason. it was too obvious.
I'm a fan of nash, he is a great player and as long as hes playing the suns are a threat. But if the spus lose tommorrow i can only be disappointed.
There is some consolation: even if these suspensions didnt happen, suns fans would have blamed the refs anyway. the thing is now they might have some argument. I do feel they were the ones who brought special attention to this series. if you suns fans are watching other series, you would see that most teams are playing just as if not harder than the spurs are.
we better ing win tommorrow.
and if it goes to 7, all of this should be moot.
The spirit of a "zero tolerance" rule is exactly the same as the letter of a "zero tolerance" rule. I'm not sure why you are having such a tough time with it. The league office has been remarkably consistent about things like this. The amendment "in the vicinity of the bench" was added because Patrick Ewing stood up and his toes were over the line. Everybody knew he wasn't heading toward the altercation, but he was suspended nevertheless. The rule was changed over the summer so that there was some room for interpretation. Amare could not be construed as just standing up, since he was past D'Antoni and Nash almost immediately. There's no way to justify what he did by either the spirit or the letter of the law. There just isn't. You are searching for mitigating cir stances. There aren't different degrees of leaving the bench; he didn't commit justifiable bench-leaving in the second degree while under emotional duress being unable to judge right from wrong. You don't have to hear exactly what they were discussing but you need only look at history to see how they were going to react, and that's exactly how they reacted.
But only if they lost. Nobody complained about the officiating last night, it was just great clutch performances by the Suns to overcome the NBA's grudge against them.
If Amare hadn't stepped over the coaches 'box' he wouldn't have been suspended.
that goes without saying!
If Amare hadn't burst out from behind the rest of the team and bolted in Horry's direction he might not have been suspended.
I feel bad only in the sense that should the Spurs go on to win this series, this ruling will be thrown in their face.
But -- you do make a good point in that Robert should have been granted a 1-game suspension vice 2 games.
So this could haunt the Spurs in game 6.
I need to get me an Horry jersey now!!!
This is certainly incorrect. I already stated that I understood the precedence so please stop repeating yourself with so many words. There really is no point in arguing with someone who is bent on a literalist interpretation, same reason I don't argue with people who take the second amendment literally and outside of the context for which it was written. When you say there is room for interpretation and then proceed to shut the door for any possibility of interpretation in this instance, nevermind that the league has never specifically defined what "vicinity of the bench" entails, you are contradicting yourself. I'm going to go watch the rest of the games tonight, good luck tomorrow Suns.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions