Suns land Hill

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Now if everyone can understand that...

Copy and past has betrayed me again!

Anyways, the points is that an altercation is just a heated argument. Which is what I'd consider the Jones/Elson thing to be. Which is why this is a stupid ing rule.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

[mavs>spurs2]

I totally agree, but there's no way that you're going to see David Stern admit he's wrong. The league should've just done away with it in 1997, but instead they thought that they had to "act tough" and stick to their guns. Now there's no way they can save face and back out of the rule, even though you know this is going to come up again. Which sucks for basketball in general, because I'm pretty sure that all fans would rather see the game decided on the court rather than in the league offices.

Stern needs to just grow a sack and admit when he's wrong and do what's best for the league.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

SpursTalk would be a lot more fun if there were more Suns fans like OldDirtMcGirt.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Stern needs to just grow a sack and admit when he's wrong and do what's best for the league.

Unfortunately his ego is too big to ever do that. Which is why we'll be forced to suffer through more ridiculous isolation plays and free thros while we shun any sort of team play.

[mavs>spurs2]

Unfortunately his ego is too big to ever do that. Which is why we'll be forced to suffer through more ridiculous isolation plays and free thros while we shun any sort of team play.

See 2006 finals. DWhistle>the whole mavericks team.

As much as I hate the spurs, I respect them for that reason. They still play team ball, which is becoming more and more rare in today's NBA.

[yourcheatinheart]

my mom flopped on my dad, and that's how i was born

[yourcheatinheart]

team ball=phoenix suns

[mavs>spurs2]

^I can agree with that, Steve Nash is the ultimate team player.

[yourcheatinheart]

mavs fans siding with spurs fans=story by vince mcmahon

[yourcheatinheart]

Its to bad Nash had to flop and make it look worse than it was, maybe black Jesus would have stayed on the bench then

too bad robert horry had to resort to tactics, maybe we would all be on here talking about what a great series it was

[michaelwcho]

Copy and past has betrayed me again!

Anyways, the points is that an altercation is just a heated argument. Which is what I'd consider the Jones/Elson thing to be. Which is why this is a stupid ing rule.

Comparing Horry vs. Nash/Bell and Jones vs. Elson is like comparing a Phoenix summer with an Alaskan summer. Sorry, I have to call BS on that one.

(I live in Phoenix and visited Alaska last August)

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Comparing Horry vs. Nash/Bell and Jones vs. Elson is like comparing a Phoenix summer with an Alaskan summer. Sorry, I have to call BS on that one.

(I live in Phoenix and visited Alaska last August)

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.

[ClingingMars]

team ball=phoenix suns

*team offense

defense isn't in their vocabulary.

-Mars

[ClingingMars]

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.

There was NO altercation. It was merely an accident, bodies were tangled after a dunk.

-Mars

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

How come Amare got suspended for leaving the bench? I always leave the bench during my middle school games and I haven't gotten suspended yet.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

There was NO altercation. It was merely an accident, bodies were tangled after a dunk.

-Mars

You can see Elson head towards Junior. I would say that it would fall under either a "noisy argument" or a "heated dispute". Nothing big, and definitely not suspension worthy. My point is that when you make these ty "hard and fast rules" people end up getting suspended for no practical reason (see: Diaw, Boris and Stoudemire, Amare), and it alienates fans.

[justanotherspursfan]

However, according to the league the severity of the incident should not be in question. I agree with you, but I'm just saying that according to the rigid definition of the rule, Tim Duncan should've been suspended.

While the league office doesn't have any leeway in deciding what do do if someone leaves the bench during an altercation, they do have leeway to decide what an altercation was, and according to the league office, Nash/Horry counted, and Elson/Jones didn't.

The former did seem a little more escalated than the latter, but frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what criteria the league uses to decide what counts as an altercation. That's another reason the current rules are on shaky ground.

Personally, I would have much rather squared off with the Suns with both teams at full strength for game 5, or with only Horry suspended, but the league office gets to make those calls, not me. Regardless, the league office did what they did. The 2007 playoffs are over, and I hope we get a nice clean rematch next year.

[ClingingMars]

You can see Elson head towards Junior.

I never saw that. is there a youtube of it?

-Mars

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I never saw that. is there a youtube of it?

-Mars

Yeah, I used the one that was posted earlier in the thread. He heads towards him and the ref holds him back.

[judaspriestess]

too bad robert horry had to resort to tactics, maybe we would all be on here talking about what a great series it was

how did this thread go from phoenix landing hill to this tired old re-hashed story by bitter suns of es fans?

It was a great series, your team just showed how stupid and immature they are which cost them the series. phoenix should not have lost game one.
sheesh, ridiculous

[OldDirtMcGirt]

While the league office doesn't have any leeway in deciding what do do if someone leaves the bench during an altercation, they do have leeway to decide what an altercation was, and according to the league office, Nash/Horry counted, and Elson/Jones didn't.

The former did seem a little more escalated than the latter, but frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what criteria the league uses to decide what counts as an altercation. That's another reason the current rules are on shaky ground.

Personally, I would have much rather squared off with the Suns with both teams at full strength for game 5, or with only Horry suspended, but the league office gets to make those calls, not me. Regardless, the league office did what they did. The 2007 playoffs are over, and I hope we get a nice clean rematch next year.

. Totally Agree, especially with the last paragraph. I just wish that the league would man up. Rules that "guarantee" anything are typically foolish and dangerous and almost always lead to punishing people who have done nothing wrong. Their only purpose is to allow the disciplinarians a way to hide behind the rule and say stuff like, "it's out of my control" so they don't have to defend themselves.

[ClingingMars]

Yeah, I used the one that was posted earlier in the thread. He heads towards him and the ref holds him back.

the thread is too big

-Mars

[Johnny RIngo]

how did this thread go from phoenix landing hill to this tired old re-hashed story by bitter suns of es fans?

S0ns fans have one track minds. Remember, Arizona was ranked the stupidest state in the nation. Most of them don't understand the concept of defense and assume a gimmick offense is going to win them a championship. Even worse are the S0ns fans that believe Phoenix would have had a cakewalk to the Finals without the suspensions. Two things they seem to neglect:

1. Spurs are 15-6 against Nash's S0ns. Phoenix can't compete against the Spurs.
2. Jazz owned the S0ns in the regular season. Deron Williams went off on the Spurs elite defense. Imagine how much he'd drop on the shoddy S0ns D. He's murder Nash every time.

[justanotherspursfan]

Rules that "guarantee" anything are typically foolish and dangerous and almost always lead to punishing people who have done nothing wrong. Their only purpose is to allow the disciplinarians a way to hide behind the rule and say stuff like, "it's out of my control" so they don't have to defend themselves.

I think the problem is that the league is scared less of things like the Pacers-Pistons brawl -- as far as they're concerned, it makes the league look like a bunch of gangstas and reduces the white audience for NBA basketball. Stern likes the "don't ever go on the court if there's an altercation" rule because he thinks it will help keep people on the bench in case of a real altercation.

Obviously, applying rules designed for that kind of situation to a minor conflict between two veteran playoff teams with little risk of starting a brawl looks absurd. But I think that's why the league has made no moves to change things. Since only the league can do anything about it, all a team can really do at this point is educate your players about it and try to make sure that if someone gets nailed again, it's not your guys.