Reply With Quote
no, it hasn't been changed in 10 years why would they do it now? although i'm sure pussyhurt sarver will be campaigning like a champ
I don't understand why people outside of the Suns homers think the bench rule should be changed. It's a rule that has been effective for 10+ years, has helped clean up the NBA during scuffles, and hasn't been violated in the playoffs in how long? Doesn't that say that most players, even the really dumb ones, are smart enough to at least follow this rule? Is there anything wrong with expecting grown men to keep their heads, keep their cool, and stay near their bench? So basically the rule will probably be revisited because two players of importance to their team broke it. Stupidity at it's highest level.
Imagine if this kind of thinking crosses the NBA lines and entered into society. What? Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving? No, he's too important to the movie industry, we must change the law to allow people to drive drunk. That's a stupid law.
Really... think about it.
no, it hasn't been changed in 10 years why would they do it now? although i'm sure pussyhurt sarver will be campaigning like a champ
I think the rule will likely be amended to include provisions giving the League some leeway other than just giving suspensions outright. It depends how serious the owners are about doing it. My guess is that after all the heat Stern has gotten he will seek to have it changed this summer.
I expect the fury to die down. Rudy T will explain why the rule is out there, they'll show what Kermit Washington did to him and that will be it. Everyone that wanted Stern to ignore the rule just to help the Suns win will be ashamed of themselves.
I doubt a lot of people even know who ol Kermit is.
No need to change the rule because two idiots couldnt control themselves
Stern won every single discussion about this issue because the rule is so cut and dry. He won't be pushing to have it changed.
I don't know how it could be realistically changed except for painting a new "instinctive reaction" boundary on the court.
But seriously. The rule does its job. It's good that the league didn't make an exception for a star player.
once this series is over it will be forgotten.
stern said if the owners want to change it, he is open to discussion. they're not gonna change it to say a star can't be suspended.
I expect a group of suns fans to have "never forget" shirts printed up. No sense of perspective, that crowd.
Yes but Stern does not want to have to go out and explain a ruling during the middle of the playoffs. Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time. Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.
There isn't going to be an owner in this league that says that he puts a win or a loss above protecting the safety of the players and fans and the image of the league. Sarver is going to bellyache about it, but I bet even he backs off it when it comes down to it. I give people too much credit for common sense, though.
stern hasn't had to spin anything. the rule is self explanatory.
It might but I don't know that it should, once you add ambiguity to the rule, it looses it's effectiveness.
Another thing that I don't think is stressed enough is that the rule wasn't put in place to keep people from fighting on court, it was put in place to keep everyone off the court. Some of these commentators and writers think that if you go on the court but don't fight it's ok, the rule was intended to stop exactly that, they don't want anyone on the court for a myriad of reasons.
Stern will laugh and tell Sarver to put seatbelts with childproof latches on his players chairs if he can't control them.
Problem solved.
It wasn't a bad decision. There was no judgment to be made, no grey area, no question of what the right thing to do was and no spin was necessary. The furor over it is caused by people that have an agenda of the Suns winning at all costs. The NBA doesn't play that way and proved it by siding with the rules. There are writers who are accusing the league of racism to try to make this decision look like it was anything other than what it was: a fair, cool-headed, even-handed application of a very clear rule that two players broke because they are stooooooopid.
I think it should be changed.
yes i think it should be changed. it should say that if you step onto the basketbal court, within the lines with both feet in the event of a fight, you are suspended 1 game. period.
or draw a box or lines that designate the "bench area" and say the same thing. it should be clear and defined lines. You are either "off sides" or you are not.
don't give me this crap about "vicinity" or "in the area" give me defined lines just like they did with the lane for the "no charge" area.
Then why did he go out and destroy anyone who questioned him? I say he rather enjoyed it.Nah, avoiding fights is still a priority and my guess is Amare and Boris will avoid leaving the bench area like they should have done in the first place.Is bad for the NBA my guess is that he will in order to avoid this situation next time.Yes, everyone knows Amare and Boris made a bad decision, no matter how much whining es try to spin it.Everyone knows this was a bad decision no matter how much Stern spins in the media.
The officials and coaches can break up a fight on the court if there are only ten players max to have to contend with. One of the officials had to turn away from separating Nash and Horry to tell Amare to get back to the bench. If Horry had cracked Nash's head open during that moment it would be very clear why Amare should have stayed put.
The rule is so clear it's stupid that so many people can't understand it.
The rule is fine, and it's there for a reason. There is no need for players on the bench to get up and help their teammates. There are 5 of them on the court, and 3 refs. The whole purpose is to avoid brawls with 30 players on the court. Once you blur the line of what's acceptable and what's not, players will start coming out onto the court again. Whether or not they get involved isn't the issue...their presence escalates the situation. You can be sure that neither Amare nor Boris will leave their bench again (well, at least Boris won't. Amare might not think quickly enough). Problem solved.
He straight up owned Dan Patrick yesterday.
They did do that -- it's called the sideline -- and people whined.
They should do like the NFL, give out a mandatory fine and suspensions based on actions once they are on the court.
Let me explain the "in the vicinity" language. Patrick Ewing was suspended because his toes strayed onto the court during an altercation, even though he never at any time made any motion towards the action on the floor, he simply stood up off his chair and has big ing feet. The league thought it fair to suspend him according to the letter of the law, and amend the rule later to account for guys with big feet or someone who was standing an inch over the edge line.
Amare ran around his coaches and teammates and ran toward Horry. He was out of the coach's box before one of the officials turned around and told him to go back. There is zero comparison between that and what Ewing did.
If you are going to change the rule so that it allows for a 6'10" guy who has been complaining about how dirty the other team is to run onto the floor toward the altercation and require a referee to have to stop him then you might just as well abandon the rule altogether.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
