I've yet to find someone argue to the fact that Tim Duncan wasn't storming in to defend Elson...
On the other hand however, Diaw and Amare reacted with the intention on going against Horry and any Spur that was involved in trying to separate Bell from him.
At that point they seemed blind and if anyone from the other team would've seen their reaction, they would've probably stormed in too.. resulting in another brawl... and I really think that if the Suns weren't playing the Spurs, that would've just happened.
This is why Stern penalized Amare and Diaw instead of Duncan... I mean sure Duncan should've gotten suspended but he didn't run into the court or got anyone's attention... just like Amare and Diaw, because if you get the attention of the team, with the adrenaline these guys play in and with the situation, you should know they probably couldn't think about it much and would have stormed in aswell.
I have a feeling Diaw was definitely going to Nash's aid, especially since he looked at the ground and ran straight towards him... and Diaw is quite the wuss when it comes to physical contact.
Amare - who knows... probably would have confronted Horry if he wasn't pulled back.
Sense's comments continue not to make any.... you guessed it, sense.
Much like the comments of Suns fans, Suns players, Suns coaches, Suns owners, and ESPN analysts.
No.
"Storming" has nothing to do with it. This is the beauty of the rule.
If what happened between Jones and Elson had been deemed an altercation, Duncan would definitely have been suspended, and possibly Bowen for going to pull him back. He had no business walking onto the court at that time. At all. Under any cir stances. He dodged a bullet, because if there'd been a shove, he would have gotten dinged even if he had been jumping up celebrating the fact that Elson didn't blow the ing dunk. That rule is completely ironclad.
I'm not arguing the rule.. I mean if we go by that Duncan should've been suspended.. I'm just trying to make some sense on why Stern didn't suspend Duncan, and that's the best I could come up with...
No altercation.
Simple.
I disagree - all of those people are modern geniuses.
I wasn't just commenting on the comment of Sense's post (not to mention his wider body of terrible posts), but just on the fact that the last two paragraphs are written so poorly that it takes a translator to decipher.
Let it go.
Yeah, it's game 6 already.
seriously
He admits he was going towards aggressively... something Tim Duncan wasn't doing...
And if you look at the replay you will see that as soon as Nash is down... Amare stops looking at him and gets starts storming in.. Diaw was more towards the sidelines and he understood faster he wasn't supposed to go in there and looked at Nash..
It took Amare longer to realize.
Btw your insult is amusing.
Intent doesn't matter. That's the beauty of it. There IS no interpretation. If there is an altercation, and you step on the court from the bench, you're suspended. You would think that even re ed Sun fan would understand, but apparently not. What saved Duncan? Spur poise and playoff composure. What doomed Amare and Diaw? Suns wannabe tough guys squaring up on Horry.
I've tried to let it go, but it's hilarious how the structure of what a real team should be is getting ruined by idiots who claim this is going to be tainted and ruling that the Spurs are a dirty team that doesn't deserve anything.
Say what you want about Amare, but I guarantee you that there was no way Boris Diaw had any intention of "going against" anybody -- the guy is passive to a fault. In fact, the paper reported just today that Diaw, in his entire life, has never been in a fight, and, in his entire career, has never been given a technical foul. He says he was going to check on Nash, and everything about his personality backs that up. After all, as ABC has been reminding us ten times an hour, Diaw and Parker are best friends, and are hanging out together before and after the games. He doesn't have an ounce of passion or aggression in his body.
I'm also confused here. I've just read 10,000 posts from Spurs fans insisting that Amare and Diaw made a conscious decision to enter the floor, and that it was completely within their power not to instinctively run to Nash when the foul occurred, and they therefore deserve no understanding of any sort for their reactions. But now you say that "with the adrenaline these guys play in and with the situation," "if anyone from the other team would've seen their reaction, they would've probably stormed in too." So which is it? I think you are right, but I also think your reasoning explains why the suspensions were unjustified.
To me, a sensible change to the rule would create an exception where the player "catches himself" before actually reaching the altercation and returns voluntarily to bench. That's more realistic, and gives players whose first reaction is to enter the floor an incentive to turn around before any harm is done.
Actually it's more realistic to expect the players to stay near the bench, since only 2 of 10 players on or behind the bench left the area in either instance.
The only thing that saved Duncan was Elson and Jones not getting into it, which is why Bowen pulled him back. The same instinct that caused Duncan to get up to protect a teammate, caused Amare to get up to protect a teammate because both are compe ive warriors. You realize that had Jones or any other Sun seen Duncan on the court and pushed Elson, Duncan would have been suspended!
Well, yes and no. By coincidence (the Suns really are cursed), the Suns assistant coach said on the radio that he actually reminded everyone on the bench not to leave the bench for any reason about halfway through the fourth quarter. Unfortunately, Diaw and Amare were on the floor playing at the time and didn't get the reminder. So that might explain why the others were sitting.
If even Duncan's instinct is to enter the floor to defend a team mate -- even when there's no "altercation," as we're constantly reminded around here -- then I think we can conclude that it's just a fact of human nature that people will instinctively react to help their friends.
What's the weather like on your planet?
Back here on Earth, there are no hate crimes in the NBA -- intention doesn't matter. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Spurs players are the last ones in the NBA who would get in a "brawl" with anyone. And they aren't stupid enough to "storm" out onto the court and get suspended.
And the 22 players who didn't go out to fight aren't compe ive warriors?The only thing that saved Duncan was Elson and Jones not getting into it, which is why Bowen pulled him back. The same instinct that caused Duncan to get up to protect a teammate, caused Amare to get up to protect a teammate because both are compe ive warriors.
Last I checked we were sentient human beings, not animals whose instinctive reactions must be obeyed.
"I couldn't help myself", "I didn't really hurt anyone", "It's not fair" don't really work as legal arguments.
No one on the team knew about the rule before the assistant brought it up during Game 5?
10% of the players on and behind the bench in that case.If even Duncan's instinct is to enter the floor to defend a team mate -- even when there's no "altercation," as we're constantly reminded around here -- then I think we can conclude that it's just a fact of human nature that people will instinctively react to help their friends.
it gets worse in the follow-up post.
So, basically Amare is too stupid to remember what every other player remembers? And, as Jalen Rose said, the league stressed this particular rule during the off-season. Oh, I'm sorry maybe Amare was asleep during the presentation. Ignorance is bliss right?
Actually, all three of those work as legal arguments.
And two out of three are usually accompanied by mentally incompetent pleas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
