[PHX/SAS] -- series discussion (merged)

[Jerryaki]

^^ definitely need to address it.

Jackson added: "The purpose of the rule is to prevent the escalation of these types of incidents and in turn protect the health and safety of our players and diminish the chance of serious injury [for] our players."

mission unaccomplished; this actually encourages it. just have pat burke drop kick duncan or something.

 

[Cal-Kings]

...
P.S. as an aside, when it comes time to revise this rule this summer, for Mr. Stern's perusal I would suggest the simple addition of the line "and who does not immediately return to the vicinity of his team's bench" after the "any player leaving the immediate vicinity of his team's bench" and before the "shall be suspended for 1 game".

I agree. There needs to be some kind of adjustment that accounts for a normal human reaction. As a fan, I jump up off the sofa when something like that happens. How can a player not do as much? The judgement should be, did they, in a reasonable amount of time, catch themselves and go back before any escalation?

The main problem with this as it is currently enforced is that it punishes the team who reacts, not the team who initiates. By doing that, they practically encourage a bench player to pick a fight with an MVP.

 

[uolj]

I understand the point of the no exceptions part of the rule. They wanted to make it so harsh that players would have it ingrained into their heads to stay on the bench.

I think that has been accomplished as much as it can be, and now the rule should be changed to add a little discretion and only suspend players who leave the bench area and enter the altercation in any way.

And the NBA made the right decision and the only decision they could make. You can't just decide to stop applying an absolute rule absolutely in a specific instance. That is what would be unfair. That is what would be biased. If the rule is bad, it is bad regardless of whether any particular situation exposes it.

It really sucks that something so stupid could have such an impact on the series, but the bottom line is that Stoudemire and Diaw knew the rule, and they broke it.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well, I don't think it could really be "leave the bench and enter the altercation" -- just because that is already covered under Stern's disctretionary powers and will get you a lot worse than 1 game. In fact that is the very situation this rule is designed to avoid. For whatever reason NBA brawls get all sorts of ugly press and really kill the league. MLB brawls rarely do. Hockey has institutionalized brawling to satisfy the 10 beers and a bar brawl crowd. But the NBA brawls tarnish the league as a league of "thugs". This rule was designed to short circuit that by making it a penalty to even get anywhere remotely close. To that degree its a good rule, or at least a good concept of a rule. Just needs to be humanized a bit. (although I will again note that 5 of the 7 players on the Phoenix bench were not stupid, and every year in dozens of situations where players could run out, they are not stupid. It appears humans can in fact obey the rule as written if they have more than a ganglia running the show).

As an aside to another post -- there ARE no "live ball" altercations. As soon as there is an "altercation", the refs blow the whistle and stop play, break it up, assess technicals etc.

And as far as sending Pat Burke out to thug, that is just silly. If the Spurs have larger ganglia, they aren't going to run out on the court, so you gain nothing. Burke will get himself suispended as Horry did, and to the degree it were traced back to the coach/organization, you will get fined. Nothing changes here. Besides people being upset that the golden little pretty boys on Phoenix might lose this series (which they might have anyway) this was not even that serious of an incident. The scorers table being the aggravating factor. It happens out around midcourt its almost just a shrug. Thuggish play, but probably not even in the Top 100 of thuggish plays this year. Its hardly a paradyme shifter, and the rules have been enforced in this one 100% consistently with how they've always been enforced. Happens in any other series, interest goes way down. Happens to the Lakers in Rnd 1, you probably hear crickets around here.

 

[uolj]

Well, I don't think it could really be "leave the bench and enter the altercation" -- just because that is already covered under Stern's disctretionary powers and will get you a lot worse than 1 game. In fact that is the very situation this rule is designed to avoid.

Why not? By "enter an altercation" I just mean reach the vicinity of the altercation. I don't necessarily mean actually do anything.

The point is don't suspend someone for stepping foot away from the bench but thinking better of it and coming back (or having an assistant coach or other player pull you back). If you get far enough that you are in the same area as the altercation, even if you don't actually do anything, then you get suspended.

They're mostly afraid of extra players being around causing the situation to escalate needlessly. You can still stop that from happening even if you relax the rule a little bit.

 

[Bricklayer]

The main problem with this as it is currently enforced is that it punishes the team who reacts, not the team who initiates. By doing that, they practically encourage a bench player to pick a fight with an MVP.

That's not really true BTW, as in an altercation there is nothing stopping the Spurs from running onto the court either as guys from the Suns hopped up to grab Horry.

And the guy "picking the fight" is always going to get suspended, so he's not winning anything either.

 

[Jerryaki]

That's not really true BTW, as in an altercation there is nothing stopping the Spurs from running onto the court either as guys from the Suns hopped up to grab Horry.

And the guy "picking the fight" is always going to get suspended, so he's not winning anything either.

(in reverse), the guy picking the fight is suspended, but he's taking one for the team. so if he's a scrub, his team benefits from the goon thuggery.

i think that there is something stopping the spurs from entering, and i hope it's a shred of decency. if my buddy were being a belligerent hooligan, and he decided to pick a fight, i'd be much, much, much less inclined to help him out than if he were the victim of a mugging. am i alone on this?

 

[starks]

as results of this, like in NHL, on each team you'll have one bruce bowen who'll go after the best player's knee or ankle (groins are covered as well) and one thug who'll start the fight (make hard foul) just to provoke the opponent’s bench......because that is (obviously) part of winning strategy...

 

[Bricklayer]

as results of this, like in NHL, on each team you'll have one bruce bowen who'll go after the best player's knee or ankle (groins are covered as well) and one thug who'll start the fight (make hard foul) just to provoke the opponent’s bench......because that is (obviously) part of winning strategy...

Yes, no doubt.

Because hey, the rule's been around 15 years, but this is afterall the first time apparently that most people have ever heard of it or seen its effects. And NOW obviously there will be thuggery all over the place hoping to snoop out major players with single digit IQs to fall into the trap. Right.

 

[Double-K]

Yes, no doubt.

Because hey, the rule's been around 15 years, but this is afterall the first time apparently that most people have ever heard of it or seen its effects. And NOW obviously there will be thuggery all over the place hoping to snoop out major players with single digit IQs to fall into the trap. Right.

Hey, if no one was doing it, they should really consider it. A win is a win, right?



Like Jerryaki said, get Pat Burke to hard foul Duncan once every 5 mins, tell your teammates not to do anything and just watch the Spurs bench.

Either one is gonna snap, Spurs bench players or Duncan's knee.....

 

[vladetomiller]

Hey, if no one was doing it, they should really consider it. A win is a win, right?



Like Jerryaki said, get Pat Burke to hard foul Duncan once every 5 mins, tell your teammates not to do anything and just watch the Spurs bench.

Either one is gonna snap, Spurs bench players or Duncan's knee.....

Has already happened with Shaq and he did get after a few including Brad miller. When you cant stop them foul them hard

 

[vladetomiller]

as results of this, like in NHL, on each team you'll have one bruce bowen who'll go after the best player's knee or ankle (groins are covered as well) and one thug who'll start the fight (make hard foul) just to provoke the opponent’s bench......because that is (obviously) part of winning strategy...

Suns were stupid in doing this.

The same suns last year used Raja Bell to clothesline Kobe, if Kobe had reacted he would have been suspended, if the bench had gotten up they would have been suspended. But they didnt, in hindsight atleast if some of them had gotten themselves suspended they would have had a reason for that choke job with a 3-1 lead

Now Bruce I dont really care, I dont respect him even as a person much less an nba player. Most dirtiest that I have ever seen, but the suns cant complain much as they have a few of their own

 

[Superman]

The 10th stupid interpretation of a rule doesn't make it any less stupid. Something does not become intelligent or rational just because it's consistent. It's just stupid.

The stupid thing would be to violate that rule, knowing full well what the outcome has been every other time someone has violated it.

 

[bdouble013]

Maybe its because I'm still in finals mode from Law School, but the difference between Duncan and Amare/Diaw is simple. The league said there was no altercation. So the rule goes

IF an altercation is found, THEN any player leaving the bench is suspended for 1 game.

Stern and Co. said there was no altercation. Sure its interpretation, but its not whether or not Duncan actually left the bench. He certainly did, but since there was no altercation, there is no rule like Brick said.

Is the rule dumb as applied? Yes. Did it perhaps cost the Suns the series? Maybe. Did Amare and Diaw know the rule and disregard it (either conciously, or unconciously)? Absolutely.

The rule, as it stands, is stupid. Even Commisioner Stern said as much this morning on the Dan Patrick show. But its there, and as such it was enforced. In the realm of what is fair or not Amare and Diaw got jobbed, but its not about what is fair. Its about enforcing the rules as written.

 

[nbrans]

The stupid thing would be to violate that rule, knowing full well what the outcome has been every other time someone has violated it.

Sure, it would be, if something like walking toward your point guard getting knocked to the ground is something you sat down and thought through and THEN did, instead of, you know, obeying human nature and taking a few steps toward your point guard after he got knocked to the floor before you remember there's a BS rule on the books.

Another stupid thing to do would be to keep perpetuating a stupid rule over and over and over as if the 10th time was less stupid than the 1st. The next time they bend the rules and say, "Hey, you know, they weren't really joining the fight we're going to let them slide," would be the first non-stupid application of that rule in 10 years.

 

[Superman]

Jesus?

No, I don't think he ever did.

Link?

 

[bdouble013]

No, I don't think he ever did.

Link?

Lol, thats too funny Supes.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, I don't think he ever did.

Link?

If he ever did, I'm thinking that about the time he found himself nailed to some pieces of wood hanging out to dry he might have changed his mind.

 

[Superman]

Sure, it would be, if something like walking toward your point guard getting knocked to the ground is something you sat down and thought through and THEN did, instead of, you know, obeying human nature and taking a few steps toward your point guard after he got knocked to the floor before you remember there's a BS rule on the books.

Another stupid thing to do would be to keep perpetuating a stupid rule over and over and over as if the 10th time was less stupid than the 1st. The next time they bend the rules and say, "Hey, you know, they weren't really joining the fight we're going to let them slide," would be the first non-stupid application of that rule in 10 years.

Before now, no one has openly lobbied for this rule to be changed. It's alwayd been a hard and fast rule that everyone in the NBA and every non-casual basketball fan is aware of. And no one has demanded that it be re-written to be more flexible from situation to situation.

The rule is there to keep Rudy Tomjonavich getting his face broken by Kermit Washington again. So it's a good rule, in spirit. A bit rigid, but the rule is there for a good reason. And has been there for several years now. And several players have been suspended as a result of the unyielding consistency of that rule being applied to the letter.

It's now an issue of fair/unfair, and only because so many people want the Suns to win this series. But the bottom line is if this had happened in February, it would just be a minor blip on the radar. It's causing such a raucous now because it has the potential to affect this playoff series and maybe even the eventual Finals champion. But the rule was applied in this case the same way it has always been applied, ever since it was put into effect.

And so the responsibility falls to the players who broke the rule. They broke the rule, and whether they knew they were breaking the rule or not, they were penalized the same way everyone else has been penalized since the beginning.

Human nature isn't important. All Stoudemire and Diaw would have done, had they entered the fray, would be to escalate the situation, not protect their teammate. And it wasn't about whether he was okay or not, either, because if he was seriously injured, their presence wasn't going to do any good. The rule is there to keep them from getting seriously injured as a result of being unnecessarily involved in the altercation. Had they simply been aware that they were putting themselves at risk of being suspended and acted accordingly, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

It's not as if this rule changed during the game and they didn't know about it. The rule is in place and is applied hard and fast, everytime, for a reason: to send a message to all the players in the League that they will be punished for leaving the immediate vicinity of the bench during an altercation. Amare and Boris didn't get the message until now, and they have to accept responsibility for it.

It sucks that it's taking attention away from what has been a pretty exciting postseason so far, and I don't agree with the outcome, especially since San Antonio is being rewarded for goonery. But it falls to each individual player to keep his butt glued to the bench during an altercation, and this doesn't happen.

 

[nbrans]

Before now, no one has openly lobbied for this rule to be changed. It's alwayd been a hard and fast rule that everyone in the NBA and every non-casual basketball fan is aware of. And no one has demanded that it be re-written to be more flexible from situation to situation.

The rule is there to keep Rudy Tomjonavich getting his face broken by Kermit Washington again. So it's a good rule, in spirit. A bit rigid, but the rule is there for a good reason. And has been there for several years now. And several players have been suspended as a result of the unyielding consistency of that rule being applied to the letter.

It's now an issue of fair/unfair, and only because so many people want the Suns to win this series. But the bottom line is if this had happened in February, it would just be a minor blip on the radar. It's causing such a raucous now because it has the potential to affect this playoff series and maybe even the eventual Finals champion. But the rule was applied in this case the same way it has always been applied, ever since it was put into effect.

And so the responsibility falls to the players who broke the rule. They broke the rule, and whether they knew they were breaking the rule or not, they were penalized the same way everyone else has been penalized since the beginning.

Human nature isn't important. All Stoudemire and Diaw would have done, had they entered the fray, would be to escalate the situation, not protect their teammate. And it wasn't about whether he was okay or not, either, because if he was seriously injured, their presence wasn't going to do any good. The rule is there to keep them from getting seriously injured as a result of being unnecessarily involved in the altercation. Had they simply been aware that they were putting themselves at risk of being suspended and acted accordingly, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

It's not as if this rule changed during the game and they didn't know about it. The rule is in place and is applied hard and fast, everytime, for a reason: to send a message to all the players in the League that they will be punished for leaving the immediate vicinity of the bench during an altercation. Amare and Boris didn't get the message until now, and they have to accept responsibility for it.

It sucks that it's taking attention away from what has been a pretty exciting postseason so far, and I don't agree with the outcome, especially since San Antonio is being rewarded for goonery. But it falls to each individual player to keep his butt glued to the bench during an altercation, and this doesn't happen.

I don't think the rule is stupid in theory, and if there weren't idiots running the NBA then it wouldn't be a problem. Brawls are bad, I agree with you there, and you need to have a consistent rule. Don't step off the bench.

But the rule becomes idiotic when it's interpreted horribly and inconsistently, as it was in this series. What annoys me is that the people who agree with the NBA keep saying that it's a hard and fast rule. No, it's not. If it were hard and fast Duncan and Bowen would have been suspended. The Kings players who went into the tunnel would have been suspended during the Christie/Fox fight. Exceptions have been made in the past, and the rule is completely open for interpretation -- AS IT SHOULD BE. There should be room to say, "Hey, you know, extraordinary circumstances, we'll let this one slide." Just like the "elbow to the head = automatic one game suspension" was relaxed for Baron Davis when he cheap-shotted Fisher. But for some reason now we're getting all letter-of-the-law on Phoenix?

The rule isn't stupid. The interpretation on the other hand, is stupid and inconsistent. The NBA should have said, "Hey, they weren't escalating the fight, they just took a few steps, we're going to let that slide." The next time someone steps off the bench and escalates a fight, suspend the heck out of them. How is that inconsistent?

Every suspension the NBA makes is a judgement call and open to interpretation -- they just happen to make ridiculously stupid judgement calls. This event has horribly damaged the NBA, and sooner or later they're going to have to figure out how to convince people it's all not pro wrestling. And the way to do that isn't by choosing to adhere to the letter of the rules, it's by using common sense and fairness.

 

[Superman]

If he ever did, I'm thinking that about the time he found himself nailed to some pieces of wood hanging out to dry he might have changed his mind.

Yeah, if not, sooner.

According to Mel Gibson, he had a pretty rough Passover that year.

 

[Superman]

I don't think the rule is stupid in theory, and if there weren't idiots running the NBA then it wouldn't be a problem. Brawls are bad, I agree with you there, and you need to have a consistent rule. Don't step off the bench.

But the rule becomes idiotic when it's interpreted horribly and inconsistently, as it was in this series. What annoys me is that the people who agree with the NBA keep saying that it's a hard and fast rule. No, it's not. If it were hard and fast Duncan and Bowen would have been suspended. The Kings players who went into the tunnel would have been suspended during the Christie/Fox fight. Exceptions have been made in the past, and the rule is completely open for interpretation -- AS IT SHOULD BE. There should be room to say, "Hey, you know, extraordinary circumstances, we'll let this one slide." Just like the "elbow to the head = automatic one game suspension" was relaxed for Baron Davis when he cheap-shotted Fisher. But for some reason now we're getting all letter-of-the-law on Phoenix?

The rule isn't stupid. The interpretation on the other hand, is stupid and inconsistent. The NBA should have said, "Hey, they weren't escalating the fight, they just took a few steps, we're going to let that slide." The next time someone steps off the bench and escalates a fight, suspend the heck out of them. How is that inconsistent?

It's the very definition of inconsistency.

The Tim Duncan situation has already been commented on by Bricklayer, so I won't go to deep into that. But if Duncan had been suspended, then it's even more consistent, and we don't have this argument about Stoudemire and Diaw, right? I doubt that.

Bottom line is that the rule wasn't written to apply to the Duncan situation. It was written to apply to the Stoudemire/Diaw situation. And had they kept themselves on the bench area, the way 5 other Phoenix Suns did, and 7 other San Antonio Spurs did - despite "human nature" - then they don't get suspended.

(And the Kings/Lakers brawl was completely different. The League decided that no one really knew what was going on in that case, and decided that the uncertainty of the situation made a clear distinction between it and any other situation the League had seen before. Besides that, the players didn't leave the immediate vicinity of their bench; the tunnel is considered part of their bench area.)

It's not like this is a shock, either. Before the League came out and said anything about a suspension, people were arguing that there should be no suspensions. This was anticipated before the League did it, because they have been so consistent in applying the rule for years.

Every suspension the NBA makes is a judgement call and open to interpretation -- they just happen to make ridiculously stupid judgement calls. This event has horribly damaged the NBA, and sooner or later they're going to have to figure out how to convince people it's all not pro wrestling. And the way to do that isn't by choosing to adhere to the letter of the rules, it's by using common sense and fairness.

The League has decided that this rule wasn't written to keep the game fair. It was written to keep the players safe. Had this rule been in effect 20 years ago and Rudy T. had jumped out on the floor and hadn't been hit by Kermit Washington but had been suspended, everyone would have screamed for fairness and common sense way back then. But it's not about what's fair and what's not. It's about keeping yourself away from the altercation, for your own safety and well-being. And the best way to do that is to set a precedent - which has been being set for for 10+ years now - by suspended every player found to be in violation of that rule, regardless of intent, human nature, or anything else.

This is not the first time this has happened, and I'd even venture to say that it's probably not the most egregious case of "common sense and fairness" being dismissed for the sake of consistency. (Remember that Reggie Miller was suspended for leaving the bench during the Detroit brawl, and that was a lot more serious than Robert Horry hip-checking Steve Nash into the scorer's table.) But because it's the playoffs and it's "the Spurs beating up on Steve Nash and the Suns," as Dan Patrick and Dan "The Duke" Davis complained all morning long, we're up in arms about it.

Like I said, I think it's a shame, but it starts with Stoudemire and Diaw keeping themselves out of the altercation. Then it's not even an issue. Just don't leave the bench, under any circumstances. And if you do, don't hope for fairness and common sense, because you ain't gonna get it. No one else ever has.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It's now an issue of fair/unfair, and only because so many people want the Suns to win this series. But the bottom line is if this had happened in February, it would just be a minor blip on the radar. It's causing such a raucous now because it has the potential to affect this playoff series and maybe even the eventual Finals champion. But the rule was applied in this case the same way it has always been applied, ever since it was put into effect.

My objection doesn't have anything to do with who I want to win this series, I really could have cared less about who won this series until this happened. I've actually supported the rule in every case I can remember it being applied up until now. What I can't remember is when the rule was applied to an "altercation" that wasn't an actual "fight" because I think the NBA could have made a distinction on that ground.

So here's my question for the league historians, how many times has this rule been applied for "altercations" that did not escalate beyond a shove after a hard foul?

 

[Superman]

My objection doesn't have anything to do with who I want to win this series, I really could have cared less about who won this series until this happened. I've actually supported the rule in every case I can remember it being applied up until now. What I can't remember is when the rule was applied to an "altercation" that wasn't an actual "fight" because I think the NBA could have made a distinction on that ground.

So here's my question for the league historians, how many times has this rule been applied for "altercations" that did not escalate beyond a shove after a hard foul?

I don't know, but I don't think that's a good line of demarcation. It doesn't take a full-blown "fight" for someone to get hurt as a result of players leaving the bench. In fact, the point is to keep players from escalating the situation into a fight where punches are thrown, etc. The League is saying that if you stay on the bench during an altercation, we have a better chance of keeping it from becoming a fight.

 

[Nazman]

All this endless discussion about rules may very well not figure into the final analysis. I am sensing that David slays Goliath tonight. Got this funny feeling that Steve Nash is going to go postal...like maybe 50+. Why not. Poetic justice.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If Steve Nash scores fifty, the Spurs will win, guaranteed. They want him to shoot; Nash shooting takes the ball out of everybody else's hands... that's when the Suns are dangerous.

 

[Superman]

If Steve Nash scores fifty, the Spurs will win, guaranteed. They want him to shoot; Nash shooting takes the ball out of everybody else's hands... that's when the Suns are dangerous.

However, if Steve Nash scores 50 and the Suns win Game 5, then go on to win the series, Dirk should express mail his MVP trophy to Phoenix.

Matter of fact, he should do that anyway.

 

[Nazman]

If Steve Nash scores fifty, the Spurs will win, guaranteed. They want him to shoot; Nash shooting takes the ball out of everybody else's hands... that's when the Suns are dangerous.

You raise a valid point. Had i finished my vision for Game 5 (knew when i started this notion that i should have included his assists) it would have looked like i had it all covered...really.

Nash will be the show tonight. When he is not scoring he will be dishing it out. He will score 50+ (why not?) and dish out 15+ assists because sometimes you just have to take matters into your own hands. The league has crowned his MVP a couple of times of late. Make no mistake. He will be around to show off the goods tonight. He has to...

 

[Bricklayer]

I ratehr doubt Steve has that sort of extra gear over what he's already providing. In particualr wiht the extra attention he'll get tonight.

Ironically I actually think the game, and series, might depend on what sort of game Tim Duncan brings. There is absolutely no reason on Earth for him not to completely dominate this one, and nobody to get him into foul trouble either. If he brings his A game, he should completely dominate inside and the Suns could be in all sorts of trouble. If however he pulls one of his disappearing/choking acts, which he is more than capable of, I think the passion in that arena could inspire Nash's running mates to play far above their heads.

Another thing to watch for will be how the refs call it. Tight I would imagine. Should favor the Suns...except that Kurt Thomas absolutely cannot get into foul trouble and has always been very very foul prone.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You raise a valid point. Had i finished my vision for Game 5 (knew when i started this notion that i should have included his assists) it would have looked like i had it all covered...really.

Nash will be the show tonight. When he is not scoring he will be dishing it out. He will score 50+ (why not?) and dish out 15+ assists because sometimes you just have to take matters into your own hands. The league has crowned his MVP a couple of times of late. Make no mistake. He will be around to show off the goods tonight. He has to...

Fifty and fifteen? Nash is going to do something that's never been done before against the best defense in the playoffs? With his number-one scoring option out of the game? I highly doubt it.