Reply With Quote
first paris Hilton in jail, now Amare suspended. What is the world coming to?
Guess They Really Mean "Stay on the Bench"
May 15, 2007 10:04 PM
Robert Horry, Amare Stoudemire, and Boris Diaw are all suspended for Game 5. It's a total downer for basketball fans everywhere, and it truly seems to reward the Spurs for a ridiculous foul.
But it's not hard to understand, when you consider how we got here.
The league has had grave PR trouble at various times in the past (mostly because there's some racist seeming notion on the part of ticket-buying fans that when basketball players do things that other athletes also do, like fight, or party, they're in dire need of taming). When that trouble gets serious enough, it really hurts the bottom line, and nowhere does it say that leagues like the NBA will never have real financial trouble. With some bad decisions, it can happen. Ask the NHL.
One of the bigger NBA PR problems of recent years was fighting (oddly, a feature in hockey, but whatever) which used to happen quite often. So the league took some serious -- even draconian -- steps to prevent it. One of those anti-mayhem rules was that no NBA player should ever leave the bench during an altercation, and if they do, they are instantly suspended, with, essentially, no questions asked.
There were some growing pains as everyone got used to the rule, including a dreadful year when the Knicks lost a shot at a le because of it. The urge to join the fight, and to protect teammates, can be strong. The rule has snared venerable stars like Reggie Miller and Charles Barkley. But eventually, just about everyone caught on.
And, in part because of that rule, the NBA no longer has a chronic fighting problem. It worked. This rule helps many dozens time a year, when little sparks fly on the court and don't become big fires -- because the few players on the court can't muster the energy to make that kind of trouble alone. And, the three referees on the court can typically keep a lid on two pissed off players. Twelve rushing in to help the two -- that's much tougher.
At the same time, the league is always trying to dispel the notion that everything is subjective, and they hold all the power to arbitrarily decide this or that. Even though that's true in these cases, the league, largely in response to fan criticism, has tried to make clear and enforceable rules where possible. The get-suspended-if-you-leave-the-bench-rule is one of the clearest and most enforceable. You don't want to be suspended? You stay on the bench. Are there any players who don't know that?
Every rule has counterexamples that make it look bad. Speeding laws seem necessary, but does the government really not want police cars, ambulances, and the cars of women in labor to speed? And many of us like leash laws. But how about those frisbee dogs that perform at halftime sometimes -- they're surely breaking the law almost everywhere they perform.
The Suns are the counterexample to the bench-clearing rule. It can suck to be a counterexample.
And yes, sure, you break those rules sometimes, when there's a really compelling argument. But what is the compelling argument here?
I guess the one that has all of us motivated is: because it means so much and because what they did was so harmless. All true, but that's an impossible standard to maintain consistently in the future. Who wants to decide who's harmless and who isn't? Who wants to say which games are really important next time?
Stu Jackson, as reported by the AP, addressed the various "Get Out of Jail Free" cards people like me were trying to give the Suns:
The "Amare Stoudemire was checking into the game" theory: "I've not seen a player report in quite that way," Jackson said.
The "Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen were on the court in the second quarter when Francisco Elson and James Jones got tangled up" theory: "Both players got up," Jackson said. "There was no altercation, and they ran down to the other end of the court."
Is he wrong on either count?
Similarly, is Horry's punishment too light? You really can't say that it is. It just wasn't that terrible of a foul -- it was actually pretty similar to Baron Davis's elbow to Derek Fisher. (Actually, Davis's may have been worse, because the NBA has a rule that an elbow to the head is an automatic suspension.) Horry's punishment is more or less in step with the way other similar suspensions have been made in the past and most of us tend to agree with that "let them play" approach. I don't see too many people livid that Baron Davis is lacing up his sneakers right now.
Long before this series began, over the course of years, the NBA had, with its actions, sent the message to players that physical play and even the occasional dirty tricks would be more or less taken in stride. But bench-clearing brawls were never acceptable, and would be squashed long before they had a chance to begin. With that in mind, Stu Jackson's announcement was, I suppose, pretty predictable.
The downside of those two consistent trends in disciplining is that it would seem to create a dirty playoff tactic: wait until there are some valuable players on the bench, then send in some bozo to deck the other team's star, just to see if you can tempt good players onto the court.
I'm sure all this hurts like crazy if you're pulling for the Suns. The rules have monkeyed with your dreams. I'm not happy about it either.
But now there's only one thing to do: suck it up and win anyway. It really could happen, and it would make the Suns America's team.
(The one thing that I really have pangs of regret about here? The Suns have not gotten anything useful out of the last few drafts, even giving up picks for cash as a cost-saving move, when reasonably good players were available. Be great to be able to roll the dice with twenty minutes from a promising young whipper-snapper in a game like this.)
It'll be tough, but everything is tough when you are dead set on winning an NBA championship.
Time to step up, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones, Raja Bell, and especially Shawn Marion. No more hesitating on the jumper, Kurt Thomas. Time to wow us all again, Steve Nash. And maybe we'll even have a Jalen Rose or a Marcus Banks sighting.
Let's do this. And if Phoenix does manage the heroics in Game 5? Then in Game 6, Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire return rested and motivated.
UPDATE: ESPN's Chris Sheridan (Insider) finds this ruling insane:
The 15-minute conference call with Jackson was one of the most contentious I have ever been on, with Jackson even acknowledging that if the leave-the-bench rule needs to be revisited, then the league office would be wide open to revisiting it. Jackson said the ruling to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for a game each (and Robert Horry for two games) was ultimately commissioner David Stern's, but that Stern had accepted his recommendation.
The league office has historically enforced this rule rigidly, though Jackson would not speak to exactly which precedents he considered before imposing the suspensions.
But just because a rule was enforced with a lack of common sense in the past does not mean it must be enforced unreasonably in perpetuity.
I absolutely think we need to start a smart and open-minded discussion about how the rules should change to prevent these kinds of absurd situations. It should change, no doubt, soon. I'm interested in hearing ideas about how.
A TrueHoop reader emailed a great point -- by this logic, if James Jones had noticed that Duncan and Bowen had wandered on the court in the second quarter, he should have immediately decked Francisco Elson. There's your altercation. Mr. Commissioner! Presumably Jones, Duncan, and Bowen would have all been suspended for Game 5 -- a big win for Phoenix.
Makes no sense.
But just ditching a long-term, iron-clad rule in one instance, without any special reason? (This rule almost always seems absurd when it is enforced. That's nothing new. Players who run on the court and throw punches can be suspended for the punches. Players who are suspended just for this rule have always done, essentially, nothing, except break this rule.) I can't understand how this case is different from all the others that have preceded it. If you believe in rules, this is the decision you have to live with.
What happens if there's another brawl in this series, and some San Antonio players leave the bench? Do they get the special "these are important games" waiver too?
The fix to whatever problem is going on now should be permanent and long-term, not a one-off.
------------------------------------------------------------
For god sakes people, read this, understand it, and accept it. This is a well written unbiased opinion.
first paris Hilton in jail, now Amare suspended. What is the world coming to?
"You don't want to be suspended? You stay on the bench. Are there any players who don't know that?"
Damn... finally, someone with a brain.
Thats what is amazing. Baron Davis didn't get suspended a single game for his elbow. Yet Horry somehow got 2 game suspension...one of which was for the foul (which is nothing compared to Davis's foul on Fischer)????? Doesn't make sense.
The ruling is ok based on the rule. The rule is ridiculous! I have no doubt that the leauge will change the rule this offseason. In the meantime, the Spurs get another le because of a bad rule that ed up a great series. It's a sad day! The only good thing to come out of this (as a fan of neither team) is that I'm going to win my bet on the Spurs in this series and my bet on the Spurs to win the le.
davis hit a black man. horry hit the great white hype.
To what?I have no doubt that the leauge will change the rule this offseason.
"During an altercation, a player may run from the bench 20 feet onto the floor in the following cases:
__________________
__________________
__________________"
Please fill in the blanks for all of us.
the Spurs get another le because of a bad rule that ed up a great series.
Dont be dense. IF the spurs win tonight, which grant it, is likely, they still aren't a lock to win a trophy, nor are they a lock to win this series.
If you are a suns fan, have some ing respect for your team for god sake.
there is no way in the rule will be changed. not in a million years.
Has there EVER been a le won on whose fairness everyone agreed? no. There are bad rules, bad calls, dirty plays called, dirty plays not called... Just ask the teams that lost. The teams that win can afford to be objective and rational.
Here's King Kaufman from Salon:
Asinine.
There isn't a better word to describe the NBA's decision to suspend Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns from Game 5 of Phoenix's playoff series against the San Antonio Spurs.
But here are a few more: Mind-boggling. Tin-eared. Shortsighted. Unfair. Idiotic. Ludicrous.
Diaw and Stoudemire were both sentenced to one game on the sidelines Tuesday for leaving the bench area following Robert Horry's hard foul on Steve Nash at the end of Game 4, which the Suns won to even the series 2-2. Horry was suspended for two games, one for sending Nash flying and another for throwing a sort of punch at Raja Bell of the Suns, who got up in Horry's face after the foul.
Bell, who actually helped escalate the situation, which is what the NBA's rules are designed to prevent, wasn't punished.
The suspensions put the Suns at a huge disadvantage for the pivotal Game 5. The single greatest determining factor in the outcome of the most exciting series of the NBA playoff system, between the two best surviving teams, may end up being a decision made in the league office, one that easily could have and should have gone another way.
That is asinine. It's no way to run a sport.
Diaw and Stoudemire took several steps toward Horry after he knocked Nash into the padded front of the scorer's table Monday, but they were herded back to the bench by Suns coaches before they got anywhere near him. The NBA's rule against players leaving the bench area during a fight were created to prevent bench-clearing brawls, and the Suns followed the spirit of the rule by keeping their players away from the action.
There was no brawl, just some pushing, mostly between Horry and Bell, with Horry shoving a forearm toward Bell's face at one point.
No reasonable person -- even one who roots for the Spurs -- could look at what took place and conclude that a fair response would be to suspend two key players from the fouled team because they took a few steps toward a brewing altercation without joining it.
No observer with any sense would think it just that although Monday night's bad situation was caused by the Spurs and the only real violence was committed by a Spur, the Spurs lose only a journeyman rotation player -- though one with an exaggerated reputation for hitting clutch shots -- while the Suns lose a first-team all-NBA player and a versatile sixth man.
But the NBA isn't interested in reason, justice or fairness.
"It is not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of correctness," said NBA executive vice president Stu Jackson, the league's discipline czar, "and this is the right decision at this point of time."
It's not about fairness. Got that, folks?
The NBA's greatest public relations problem is the perception by fans that the games aren't fair, that referees call the games to favor superstar players and whichever team the league wants to win, usually the one with the more marketable superstar.
Commissioner David Stern thinks the biggest problem is the perception of the league as a haven for hip-hop-influenced thugs. That's why his major initiatives of the past few years, other than the stupid synthetic ball briefly used this season, have been aimed at cleaning up that image. Those initiatives include a higher minimum age, a dress code and Draconian enforcement of behavior rules, which has turned the NBA into a technical-foul festival.
This thug business is a big issue with the corporate fat cats who buy the luxury suites and have Stern's ear. And don't think there aren't some racial issues going on with the mostly white corporate crowd having a problem with the young black guys acting out. That same crowd hasn't been heard calling for a crackdown on fighting in the NHL.
But out here among the public, for every conversation about pimped-out clothes and tattoos and angry young men, there are hundreds about how there are different rules for different players. Fans and former fans by the thousands, and maybe by the millions, believe the fix is in when the ball goes up.
And what the NBA really wants you to know is this: It's not about fairness. That's the message. In a sports landscape in which baseball is in perpetual crisis mode because the apparent widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs is seen by fans as giving some players an unacceptably unfair advantage, the tin-eared NBA is telling fans not to worry, it's not about fairness.
"No one here at the league office wants to suspend players any game," Jackson said Tuesday, "much less a pivotal game in the second round of a playoff series. But the rule, however, is the rule, and we intend to apply it consistently."
Ludicrous.
If the rule is the rule, and all that matters is consistency, not applying the rule to the specifics of the situation, not taking into account the context and the damage done or any sense of fair play, what is the point of Stu Jackson's job? An intern could look at the video, see that Stoudemire and Diaw took a few steps, and announce the suspensions.
If all that matters is consistency, if the rule is the rule, why was Derek Fisher of the Utah Jazz not disciplined for breaking the dress code by showing up for Game 2 of the Jazz's series against the Golden State Warriors in a T-shirt and jeans? Sure, he'd just rushed in from New York where his infant daughter had had lifesaving surgery earlier in the day, but the rule is the rule.
Keep in mind, for consistency's sake, that this is the series in which San Antonio's Bruce Bowen was not suspended for kicking Nash in the crotch.
If no one at the league office wants to suspend players for the pivotal game of a second-round playoff series, here's an idea: Don't do it. Jackson talks as though his hands are tied, like a judge forced by legislated sentencing minimums to hand down a punishment he doesn't believe is just. That's simply not the case.
Jackson said he makes a recommendation to Stern, but the final decision is the commissioner's. And there's no appeals process. Stern is a dictator. If the rules aren't working -- and they are clearly not working, as even Jackson acknowledged during a conference call with reporters, suggesting that the league might reevaluate the suspension rule in the off-season -- Stern can make a ruling that works.
But Stern would rather torpedo the product in the service of a foolish consistency. It's mind-boggling.
So what happens is the team that committed the violent act, made the dirty play, loses a player for two games who during the regular season contributed 16 minutes, four points, three rebounds, a block and an assist per game. The team that was fouled, that restrained itself before retaliating violently, loses 64 minutes, 30 points, 14 rebounds, five blocks and five assists.
Truer words were never spoken than "It's not about fairness."
What this shortsighted policy does is create incentive for teams to do exactly what Horry did Monday night. Why would you not send an end-of-the-bench guy onto the floor during the playoffs to commit an act of violence when the other team's best player or, even better, players are on the bench getting a rest?
If any of those guys have the natural, in-the-moment, adrenaline-charged, human reaction of moving toward their battered teammate to help, they're gone for the next game. Your guy gets tossed too, but that's a of a trade. Just ask the Spurs. If the other team doesn't take the bait, well, at least you tried, and all you lose is an end-of-the-bench guy for a game.
The rule also creates an incentive for brawls to escalate. Once a player has taken a step or two from the bench toward an altercation, there's no reason to stop short of joining in. You're already suspended, pal. Might as well keep going and get a few licks in. It's idiotic.
It also can't be lost on teams that when the Suns didn't escalate the incident when Bowen kicked Nash, Bowen didn't get suspended. When they did escalate the Horry incident -- Bell going nose to nose with Horry, even ignoring the bogus "leaving the bench area" charge -- Horry did get suspended.
It would seem that escalating the incident forces the league's hand into suspending the instigator, wouldn't it? Here's another idea: Get seat belts for your star players, so they can't leave the bench area if they want to, but instruct those last three towel-wavers on the bench to go into attack mode at the first hard foul by the other team.
Ten years ago P.J. Brown of the Miami Heat, angry at what he perceived to be New York Knicks guard Charlie Ward's attempts to injure him, threw Ward over his shoulder in Game 5, which started a brawl that resulted in several key Knicks players being suspended for leaving the bench. The Heat, down 3-1, won that game, then beat the shorthanded Knicks twice more to take the series.
Incredibly, with that incident in its past, the NBA hasn't created a system that deals with situations like these in a fair and just way. Or maybe it's not so incredible. After all, as we learned Tuesday, it's not about fairness.
For those of you who are interested in sports that aren't fair, Game 5 is scheduled for Wednesday night.
That is what some Suns fans don't understand. Horry was suspended 2 games so as to balance Amare's and Boris' suspensions.
Exactly....Stern and company aren't going to change the rules just because it possibly changed the outcome of one game..And no one can even be sure of that.
Might as well look for them to change the "no blood" playing rule also....
Didn't that change the outcome of game 1? If you take a poll, I'm sure you will find that it did. Phoenix wins without that rule.
What do people not understand about a rule being a rule? That's the problem with today's society. No one want's to take responsibility for what they did.
Did Robert give a hard foul and raise his arm at Bell? Yes. Did Amare and Diaw leave the bench during an altercation thus going against league rules? Yes. I fail to see the problem with the punishments handed out.
it's not fair that a couple of players were incapable of following a simple rule?
The rule just needs to be adjusted to where it's not so "black & white". I have no clue how they go about doing that but it's been the history/pattern of Stern & league to make changes when the majority of the national media thinks a rule or similar is ridiculous. I'm sure the rule will be addressed in the offseason and I'm guessing that they'll adjust it.
"Findog"
Thanks for posting yet another "analyst" who is ignoring the facts of the matter and is getting an emotional response.
We dont have enough people placing the blame one everyone and everything in sight, vs the people actually breaking the rule. We definately needed one more.
Im going to light my desk on fire today at work. Because, "god damnit its cold in here, and i deserve to be warm" "but...soul_patch, what about the rules regarding arson and killing people??" "well that, im cold, they need to make an exception!, dumbasss should learn to fix the AC, i cant help it i have to set my desk on fire to stay warm"
I don't think there is any other way than to have a black and white rule. If you add too much gray to it, then there is room for all sorts of interpretations.
Bring back the brawls.
I doubt the Suns can handle any of it.Bring back the brawls.
Open the floodgates!
What is that about being emotional?
Thanks for posting yet another "analyst" who is ignoring the facts of the matter and is getting an emotional response.
Im going to light my desk on fire today at work. Because, "god damnit its cold in here, and i deserve to be warm" "but...soul_patch, what about the rules regarding arson and killing people??" "well that, im cold, they need to make an exception!, dumbasss should learn to fix the AC, i cant help it i have to set my desk on fire to stay warm
I have no problem with punishing these guys for breaking a rule, and I'll just repeat my argument from another thread: Roll these punishments over to the next regular season. It shouldn't decide a playoff series. Jackson's stance is that a rule is a rule and they're only applying it consistently, no matter if it's a scrub or an All Star involved, regular season game or Game 7 of the Finals.
Well, that's horse to claim they have no flexibility in meting out punishment or using discretion in order to determine whether or not the Horry/Nash scrum is an altercation but the Jones/Elson thing isn't. They used discretion to label Elson/Jones as nothing but determined an altercation had occurred with Nash/Horry when all it was was jostling and harsh words exchanged. It's pretty simply actually: either claim that the Nash/Horry incident didn't rise to the level of an "altercation" when no punches were thrown and no fights broke out and let things get decided on the court, or do something completely asinine.
You might be right, but I'm sure the league will address it and try. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the ruling, just the rule. It just seems wrong to penalize a team for players actions surrounding an incident that they didn't start nor finish. I'm over it though as I'm almost guaranteed to win my bets on the Spurs now
if jackson says it's not an altercation, it's not unless stern says it is. why is this so hard to understand? why don't we just roll over suspensions till the end of a career then while we're at it?
This is what we're up against, folks. Frick'n media DARLINGS.But now there's only one thing to do: suck it up and win anyway. It really could happen, and it would make the Suns America's team.
Rule by fiat. It's true what they say, dictatorships aren't nearly as messy.if jackson says it's not an altercation, it's not unless stern says it is.
Why is it so hard to understand that this sequence of claiming the league had no flexibility to keep both teams at full-strength is disengenuous bull ? Why is it so hard to understand that hardcore basketball fans want to see this series decided at full strength and not because Amare and Diaw are getting a felony punishment for a misdemeanor offense?why is this so hard to understand?
No, why don't we preserve the integrity of breaking a rule by pushing the consequences back to November? Deciding a championship on the court is more important. If you can't see that, I can't help you.why don't we just roll over suspensions till the end of a career then while we're at it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
