JO's suspension reduced

Evenstar

Evenstar

Starter
#1
#1
i saw this flashing on the bottom of ESPN news, and i found this article:

Associated Press
NEW YORK -- Jermaine O'Neal won a 10-game reduction Wednesday in his suspension for fighting with fans during the Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons brawl, but an arbitrator upheld NBA commissioner David Stern's bans on Ron Artest and two other Indiana players.






Arbitrator Roger Kaplan's decision makes O'Neal eligible to return Saturday, when the Pacers host the Pistons in the teams' first matchup since one of the most violent melees in NBA history.



It was unclear whether the NBA would recognize Kaplan's authority to intervene. The league refused to participate in the arbitration hearing Kaplan conducted Dec. 9.



The NBA had no immediate comment.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1951675


so kids, heres a lesson, being a star can get you off the hook for throwing cheapshots at fans! WHAT A JOKE!

keep him suspended. what he did was totally uncalled for and totally unprovoked. the pacers brought all these suspensions upon themsleves by acting like IDIOTS, they shouldn't be let off the hook.
 
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#3
#3
This is the correct ruling, IMO. In fact, I really don't think he should have been suspended for very long at all. I still maintain that what he did was no different than what baseball players did when the father-son ran duo ran onto the field and were beat up after attacking an umpire. There's no differene, if security can't keep fans off the court, then JO can defend himself. This has nothing to do with players going into the stands. If a fan comes onto the field/court in any sport, he is risking his own health in doing so.
 
G

gocmen

G-League
#6
#6
I am just wondering. Did Jermaine go to the stands and hit anybody, or did he just hit that guy on the court? If it is the latter, then I think he shouldn't get as much suspension as SJax. Either increase SJax's suspension or decrease O'Neal's. But, that's just me.
 
SLAB

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#7
#7
I think all O'Neal did was blindside the guy on the court...His suspension should have been dramatically less, IMO.

Baseball players don't get suspended when they kick the crap out of someone on the field, why should JO?
 
HndsmCelt

HndsmCelt

Hall of Famer
#8
#8
Not shure how one judges parity between suspensions when fighting with fans. But seems to me that 10 games needs to be a minimum for the NBA to show players that they are serious about not tollerating violecne on fans REGARDLESS of the circumstances. Most other player will understand how serious this is if they make examples out of STAR players. Sorry Jermine it might be a bit unfair to make an example of you but you are the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, but a message has to be sent.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#9
#9
I'm in agreement with those who think Jermaine has already served his time. 10 games for clocking an idiot that wandered onto the court during that fracas (and who had assisted in confronting Artest in the first place) is more than enough imho, and I don't see how he's getting star treatment in this at all.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#10
#10
Jermaine O'Neal SLID across the court to continue the idiocy. He was NOT defending himself when he did that...The original decision by David Stern took everything into consideration and DID not show favoritism to one of the league's star players.

I hope the court upholds Stern's right to make the decision and rules the arbitrator without jurisdiction in the matter.
 
Evenstar

Evenstar

Starter
#12
#12
all indications are tht the NBA has the final say, so he'll probably have to serve the whole suspension.

and he should. oh bullpucky, yes the fan was a IDIOT for going onto the court, but this guy posed NO threat to JO, security was ( finally) over there attending to the matter. JO has NO right to just go over there ( with a running start) and cold clock the guy. thats horsecrap. just because you have the so called right to do something doens't mean you should. legally, i can smoke, but that doesn't mean i should ( or ever will)

the pacers frankly got what they deserved. they were the ones acting like jackasses, so they got hit the hardest. it's not the leagues fault, it's the players. they have to be accountable for their actions.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#13
#13
Should O'Neal have hit the man? No. Should the man have been on the court in the first place, though? No. And can you hold JO responsible to the tune of 25 games when he punched a guy in a wild fracas where he had watched that same guy shove Ron Artest and one of the Pacer's assistant coaches? I answer that question NO as well.

I agree with the Jackson suspension, and that's it. Artest should have probably got 40 games or so, but not the whole season, imho. Jackson shouldn't have been in the stands after Artest, so 30 sounds fair. O'Neal didn't set foot in the stands, and as far as I've read, didn't do anything to any fan until that fan went where he wasn't supposed to be AND challenged one of JO's fellow teammates.

Yes, the man was on his knees, and yes, JO had a running start, but he probably started running when the guy was still strugging with the Pacers assistant, and the opportunity presented itself as JO got nearer to the guy. I feel no empathy for the dude for walking onto the floor to get into a fight with a bunch of professional athletes. Did he get a nasty concussion? I hope so. Did he have to miss some days at work because of it? Hopefully to the tune of 25 games, same as JO if the suspension holds.

I look at it similarly to someone breaking into your house. Say a burglar is in your house. You catch him in the act, but he doesn't see you coming, so you knock the guy out flat with a baseball bat. If he didn't know you were there when you hit him, were you in any danger? Probably not. Does that mean you need to be put in jail for assault/battery with somewhat deadly force? Not in my opinion. Did JO know the guy wasn't going to get up and keep charging after Pacers? No, so he took advantage of the situation and made sure the guy wouldn't be charging after other Pacers. More power to him. Nobody feels bad for the guy that just got punched in the mouth by Artest because it didn't look so devastating.

And, yes, I've lived in Texas.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#16
#16
4cwebb said:
Should O'Neal have hit the man? No. Should the man have been on the court in the first place, though? No. And can you hold JO responsible to the tune of 25 games when he punched a guy in a wild fracas where he had watched that same guy shove Ron Artest and one of the Pacer's assistant coaches? I answer that question NO as well.
Click to expand...
Two wrongs do not make a right. The man should defnitely have not been on the court. But he was... It was not JO's job or responsibility to slide across the floor and attack him FOR ANY REASON. Can I hold him responsible? Damned straight I can. The athletes KNOW better. JO is learning a valuable and costly lesson and I'm quite sure the rest of the players in the league are going to think about it before THEY decide to get involved should something this ugly and stupid ever happen again.

Look at it this way: The Indiana Pacers have an immense amount of money tied up in Jermaine O'Neal. He put that in jeopardy by taking himself out of the role of athlete and into the role of enforcer. Had HE been hurt, the entire franchise would have suffered a lot more than they're suffering right now by him sitting out a bunch of games.

Artest's actions were wrong; the fans actions were clearly wrong. Any additional actions by the Pacer players were also wrong. David Stern sent a message. A slap on the wrist wouldn't have gotten the message across; these suspensions will hopefully prevent something worse from happening in the future.
 
R

Rowdyone

Bench
#17
#17
We can debate the appropriateness of the penalties levied by Mr. Stern until we're all blue in the face. The real story here is does the NBA Players Association and Billy Hunter have the right to circumvent the league's authority by going to an "arbitrator" independantly without league participation, obtain a favorable ruling and then pressure the league to change what the one man designated to protect and promote the league, Mr. Stern, has already decided was best for the league? Why didn't the players association go directly to court to challenge the ruling? Because that would put them in an untenable PR position. This way it makes it appear that they are being fair while challenging the decision of someone who is not being fair...and, judging by some of the above comments they have judged accurately that many fans will think he was too harsh on Jermaine and the penalty should be reduced. Personally, whether Mr. Stern's punishments were too "stern" or not is not the issue...the integrity of the league and it's rules supercede JO's penalty or it's perceived appropriateness.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#18
#18
Excellent point, Rowdyone... I have to wonder if there's any chance of NOT having to go through a player lock-out down the road.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#20
#20
I think we're talking about the same thing. If the owners can't reach an accord with the NBA Players Association, they - the owners - will lock out the players.
 
R

Rowdyone

Bench
#21
#21
I would be curious to see if this challenge is supported by the majority of the players in the league. Much lipservice has been paid as to the behavior of all concerned but when it comes right down to dollars and cents vs integrity and consistancy of rules enforcement where do they stand? This challenge, in my mind, makes them all look bad.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#22
#22
Is it that cut and dry that Stern has the sole authority to set punishment for the players? I think the NBA Players' Union had a good argument that these actions were not "on the court behavior", which if I was informed correctly by various news outlets is the area in which Stern has sole decision-making authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I think it's up for debate whether this fracas constitutues "on the court behavior", and see no reason why the Union shouldn't have challenged Stern's single-handed decision in this instance.

VF21, I agree that two wrongs do not make a right, and I agree that those players that went into the stands needed to receive harsh punishments. I think JO should have received in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 games, which would have been more than Vernon Maxwell received for charging a fan in the stands a few years ago. Is that a slap on the wrist? Looking at the Pacers' record over those 15 games, I think they would argue "hardly". But by giving JO 25 games some fans *could* think that no matter what they do to antagonize a player, and no matter where in the arena they do it, if there is any sort of physical action by the player against said fan (which in all likelihood said fan will lose b/c these are, after all, professional athletes), that the player will suffer for it.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#23
#23
I'm uncertain how to post links, but a court upheld the arbitrator's reduction, so O'Neal will play in the next two Pacer games before Stern can appeal the decision, at least according to Mark Stein of espn.com. I, for one, hope the decision holds. This ruling means that there is room for interpretation in the CBA, meaning that Stern is not the czar of NBA player discipline, and after this past incident, I think that's a good thing.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#24
#24
David Stern IS the czar of NBA player discipline. It's his job; it's what he's supposed to do. Room for interpretation in the CBA? Oh bleeping wonderful. Because of the CBA, we are looking at a very real chance of a lockout similiar to what the NHL is going through.

Be very careful what you wish for...
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#25
#25
VF21 said:
David Stern IS the czar of NBA player discipline. It's his job; it's what he's supposed to do. Room for interpretation in the CBA? Oh bleeping wonderful. Because of the CBA, we are looking at a very real chance of a lockout similiar to what the NHL is going through.

Be very careful what you wish for...
Click to expand...
Apparently a few people of presumably reasonable intelligence would disagree with the czar assessment, and while they did agree that he was right to impose the suspensions on those players that went into the stands, they didn't agree that he has the absolute authority to ban a player for actions in this scenario when said player never left the court, and only was involved in an altercation when a fan came into his area.

As for the whole CBA issue, I don't have the background knowledge to really comment, but if the two sides can't work out their differences to allow each other to continue making millions upon millions of dollars, then there must be something not entirely right with the CBA, right?
 
KP

KP

Starter
#26
#26
Courtside seats??

It was never really clear to me if that guy who Jermaine Destroyed had floor seats. If he did and all that crazy stuff was going on around him, I don't think it was that crazy of him to stand up. But if he did climb down from up in the stands, well then he got what he wanted, He just lost the fight... Big time. The Bigger thing about this is it totally Diminishes David Sterns(and the leagues) power big time. They now are gonna have to think about the Player Assoc's take on all future suspensions. Looking at baseball and hockey I don't know if thats a good thing.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#27
#27
Just as a quick follow up, a court upheld the arbitrater's decision to reduce JO's suspension. Precedent now set, and as pointed out by Ric Bucher, now high on David Stern's list of items to clarify when the new CBA is negotiated.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#28
#28
4cwebb said:
Just as a quick follow up, a court upheld the arbitrater's decision to reduce JO's suspension. Precedent now set, and as pointed out by Ric Bucher, now high on David Stern's list of items to clarify when the new CBA is negotiated.
Click to expand...
Which is really unfortunate -- there are serious issues out there to worry about and all you need is a stupid pissing contest betwen Stern and the Players Union over an insignifcant power issue to make things more difficult for no reason.
 
4cwebb

4cwebb

Starter
#29
#29
Bricklayer said:
Which is really unfortunate -- there are serious issues out there to worry about and all you need is a stupid pissing contest betwen Stern and the Players Union over an insignifcant power issue to make things more difficult for no reason.
Click to expand...
Eh, the wording of "on court" actions/behaviors may have been overlooked had this incident not happened, but I'm a bit surprised that so many lawyers have overlooked the vague meaning of that little term for so long. Makes me wonder how many other vague phrases are lurking in the CBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.