Reply With Quote
Good analysis (nothing new) but I think part of what "convicted" Amare and Diaw was that they strayed beyond the coaches box.who never strayed very far from the "immediate vicinity" of the bench at any rate
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_...purs-suns.html
Since y'all can't seem to get enough of this Spurs-Suns controversy, I thought I'd share an outside perspective. Ted Ruger is an old college friend who now teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania. He's also a former Supreme Court clerk, not to mention a big sports fan.
Here's Ted's take from an email this morning:
"I like the Suns and so am disappointed by the ruling (and in a way losing Diaw hurts just as much -- remember the Suns were pretty good last year with him replacing Stoudemire).
But it's hard to see how the league could have done anything else, given the clarity of the rule and the long memories of Knicks fans and the NY media. Every year in my statutory interpretation class I teach the episode where Ewing left the bench to act as peacemaker in the 1997 playoff fight, and still was suspended. The rule may be a bad one that occasionally produces injustice -- just like "three strikes" laws and mandatory minimum sentences -- but it's so clear on its face that I don't see how the league can wiggle out from under it without making a travesty of the whole rulebook.
Stu Jackson's quote is right out of the Scalia textualist playbook: 'It's not about fairness. It's about correctness.' Plus if they made an exception now they'd have had all of NY, all of San Antonio, plus one vocal Knicks fan in Charlotte [our buddy Chris] on their case.
Some are now contending that if the NBA's rule really was black and white, though, that Tim Duncan should be suspended for taking a few steps onto the floor when teammate Francisco Elson was undercut by the Suns' James Jones after a Game 4 dunk. Here's the video:
(the vid's in the link)
Here's the relevant section of the NBA rulebook, from Rule 12A, Section VII, c:
"During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000."
There is some wiggle room here, however, such as in how one defines "altercation" and "immediate vicinity." In the Duncan case, the ruling was that Elson flipping over Jones didn't qualify as an altercation (to which I agree).
But if the NBA really feels like this rule cannot be applied with any discretion in the case of Stoudemire and Diaw -- who never strayed very far from the "immediate vicinity" of the bench at any rate -- then the letter of the law should be changed in the offseason.
Good analysis (nothing new) but I think part of what "convicted" Amare and Diaw was that they strayed beyond the coaches box.who never strayed very far from the "immediate vicinity" of the bench at any rate
Hey professor, thanks for chickening out before suggesting how the wording should be changed.
the Elson incident clearly was NOT an altercation. The players did not confront each other, much less have a fight.
You got a Law Degree for this????? No wonder lawyers have such pathetic reputations.
I'm just a poor programmer.The law prof's in the link.
Wrong, he was past the coaches box, a coach could get a technical for being there, so you can't say it's the immediate vicinity...
Yeah, the coaches box did them in too, I agree... and such an argument falls in line with the league's decision to make this is as "black and white" or "cut and dry as possible"
However, I wish they hadn't exaggerated and said they were 20 to 25 feet away... that was 15 ft at the max
He's a professor and a lawyer - you don't think he's gonna offer up that kind of info without first seeing if he can capitalize on it monetarily in the off-season...
Oh no, he brought Scalia into the conversation.
That is between the lecture on Brown vs. Board of Education and the one on Gomer Pyle's "citizen's arrest."
Last edited by Russ; 05-17-2007 at 08:44 PM.
I don't think you need a law professor to understand the simple bench rule. Only a moron could not understand it (sun fans?)
pathetic ing suns fans.
Why do people use the '97 Knicks as a justification for enforcing the rule in an unfair way? To this day, ten years later, we all still remember that incident as a symbol of how unfair and obtuse a rigid application of the rule can be. It's should be a warning of something to avoid repeating, not a precedent for doing it again!
I'd rather read a paper on a head shrink's analysis of why Suns fans can't see the flopping that is obvious to Spurs fans. And vice versa to be fair. :-) Plus the whole dirty thing, why they see the plays as dirty and we don't, etc. Now THAT I would read. Not some lawyer's crap, I can read a one sentence rule and have my own eyes, you don't need a law degree to interpret a one sentence rule.
Actually it shows a respect for the rules as written, and that the rules can be changed when it makes sense. Why on earth would anyone want Stern to be able to change the rules whenever he wants to?Why do people use the '97 Knicks as a justification for enforcing the rule in an unfair way?
Oh I don't know and I wouldn't be as harsh. If Stoudamire had levelled (for lack of a better word) parker in the same way, and SA players had left the bench area in the same manner and distance, we would all react the same way.
ing no. First of all, let's assume Spur players on the bench are stupid enough to walk away from the bench. I would conclude it is their damn fault for breaking the rule, even if it was Manu or Tony suspended. but I know that wouldn't even happen, because Manu or Tony are not as stupid as Amare.
plus if that happened to Tony or Manu the media would not have said more than 10 words about it. it would be a forgotten matter, and they would be praising the suns for winning game 5. that, now that is some unfair . so the media, and the re ed sun fans. this madness ends tomorrow.
Dude, Duncan left the bench in the same game. Fine, it wasn't an "altercation." Do you really believe that Duncan thought to himself, "Should I walk onto the floor to defend my teammate? I guess it's ok, because this isn't an altercation." And why did Bowen go after him? Because Bowen recognized the danger Duncan was creating for himself. It's not stupidity -- it's human nature, and there's a lot to admire in it.
I'm glad you agree with Stern. cheers
yet they didn't. and this is a spurs fan forum. so i'm not too sympathetic.
an Edumacted chic weighs in on spurs-suns .......
stop the whining!
Nope, it's stupidity. Duncan got lucky.
The funny thing is how the Suns did not feel that the Horry-Nash-Bell incident was an altercation, but oh, when it suits them, the Elson-Jones incident was an altercation.
The thing is that if Jones saw Duncan, and was able to think fast enough, he would have had an incentive to deck Elson. That is the flaw, then again, nobody on the bench should get on the floor. But yeah, Duncan was being re ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
