[PHX/SAS] -- series discussion (merged)
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
The Suns are a more entertaining product, but that has yet to determine who the NBA would rather see get through. The Spurs have more star power, and more international draw, which is something Stern has increased his interest in. Duncan is also a good face for the new, harmless, no-rioting NBA that Stern is producing. I'm not sure if that overcomes the Nash/entertainment factor, but it easily could.
Spurs fans and Laker fans who are sore over the Suns owning them(ran into plenty of them on boards like realgm) want Amare/Diaw suspended. But IMO a real basketball fan doesn't.
He broke a retarded rule a bit and he got penalized for Horry's violent act. It sucks but oh well. Time for Nash to play like a legend tomorrow, I'm calling it right now he's getting 30/20.
No, Amare and Boris got penalized for breaking the rule about leaving the immediate vicinity of the bench. You either break the rule or you don't. You can't break it "a bit." Horry got penalized for his cheap shot with a two game suspension.
The problem isn't with this situation. The problem is really with the rule itself. And I don't think being a "real basketball fan" has anything whatsoever to do with it.
The problem isn't with this situation. The problem is really with the rule itself. And I don't think being a "real basketball fan" has anything whatsoever to do with it.
I think people are getting this wrong the NBA and Stern does not favour the Spurs or the Suns. This is all about Stern and nothing else. He wants total control over every situation reguardless if it is fair. If he decided with the fans that would mean him giving in and thats not him. Look how long it took for him to changed the balls back to leather and that was only after the NBPA threaten to take the NBA to court. It is all about power and Stern wants all of it.
That's ridiculous in this case -- this rule was put in years ago precisely to take power OUT of Stern's hands. Or discretion I should say. Its not his call/the league offices call. That's like saying that mandatory sentencing rules are designed to make judeges feel mroe powerful. Exactly the opposite. Its non-discretionary. Hence, while it may in fact be a stupid rule, UNTIL they start ignoring it due to situation, its a "fair" one in that everybody is playing under the same absolute rule.
This has got nothing to do wiht Stern. And nothing to do with favoritism. This is "if anybody steps on the lawn, they will be shot, no exceptions", followed by a young woman with a child running onto your lawn to escape an axe wielding maniac, so you shoot her. The underlying law may be in question, but it was applied absolutely correctly. And was well known by all involved BTW.
This has got nothing to do wiht Stern. And nothing to do with favoritism. This is "if anybody steps on the lawn, they will be shot, no exceptions", followed by a young woman with a child running onto your lawn to escape an axe wielding maniac, so you shoot her. The underlying law may be in question, but it was applied absolutely correctly. And was well known by all involved BTW.
Well yeah, they did break the rule. But I mean you have to understand it's a natural reaction. Your friend gets smashed into a table by a guy twice his size you will jump up and run too. You want to see if your friend is okay. That's what Amare/Diaw were doing. And yeah the rule itself is retarded. It wasn't created for this IMO just like Barkley said. It was created to stop guys from joining in brawls. Not to stop guys from going and checking on their teammates.
BTW yes being a "real basketball fan" has something to do with it, atleast IMO. You either want to see the suns lose and you're happy about it or you want to see each team at their best, especially considering these are 2 of the 3 best teams in the NBA. Spurs lose a scrub, Phoenix loses a superstar who went to check up on his teammate and another guy in their rotation. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'm upset that Stern suspended these guys and not Duncan/Bowen. Duncan/Bowen hopped on the court too to see if their guy was ok when Elson went flying over. But the NBA's golden boy Duncan didn't get punished for that even though he stepped over the 3 point line.
Oh well, Nash is going to dominate this game. 30/20, you guys will see greatness tomorrow.
One more time: there was no altercation/stoppage of play in the Elson situation. But you know what, if Elson had hopped up, took a swing, the refs had blown their whistles, and Duncan was out on the court like that? He would have been suspended too.
As an aside, Amare rushing over to "protect" his teammate is absolutely escalating the situation. More heated bodies, more pushing/shoving, more chance of a brawl. Its precisely the situation the rule was designed for.
As an aside, Amare rushing over to "protect" his teammate is absolutely escalating the situation. More heated bodies, more pushing/shoving, more chance of a brawl. Its precisely the situation the rule was designed for.
Surely you agree that that would be setting a horrible precedent and that if the NBA were able to waive the rule in that instance because there was no play stoppage they could just as easily waive the rule in the later incident because no fists were thrown or some other made up reason?
The thought that the rule as it stands now could actually encourage a 10th man type player to take a swing... mind boggling.
The thought that the rule as it stands now could actually encourage a 10th man type player to take a swing... mind boggling.
I have no idea what you just said. 
They did not "waive the rule" in the Elson instance -- there IS no rule in the Elson instance. The rule has NEVER applied to live ball stuff. Think you might be able to assess a technical on Duncan for being out that far -- had no business, but that's about it.
And if you are implying that somebody, whether Elson or otherwise, should take a punch just to "trap" some fool who has wondered on out onto the court, well that is again on the fool who has wondered on out onto the court. Duncan had no business out there either. However with the game still being played and no fight imminent there was presumably next to no danger Tim was going to un out and tackle the offendeing Sun with the game still being played. Hence, there is no automaatic suspension rule in that setting.
They did not "waive the rule" in the Elson instance -- there IS no rule in the Elson instance. The rule has NEVER applied to live ball stuff. Think you might be able to assess a technical on Duncan for being out that far -- had no business, but that's about it.
And if you are implying that somebody, whether Elson or otherwise, should take a punch just to "trap" some fool who has wondered on out onto the court, well that is again on the fool who has wondered on out onto the court. Duncan had no business out there either. However with the game still being played and no fight imminent there was presumably next to no danger Tim was going to un out and tackle the offendeing Sun with the game still being played. Hence, there is no automaatic suspension rule in that setting.
Same as always -- NBA Board of Governors I would imagine, with of course Stern and deputies suggesting or whatever the hell they do at those things.
I rather doubt it was done to tie Stern's hands, so much as lay down exactly the law of the land to stop the ugly brawling. No appeal, no discretion, you don't do x or y happens. There is next to no advantage for David Stern's own power in such a situation, because he could just as easily have instituted such punishments on his own, and maintained discretion to play favorites (I sometimes wonder how he keeps track of all the various favorites he is supposed to play -- between them and the dozens of conspiracies, its got to be prety confusing). But it has the singlular value of being absolute, unarguable, and a flat out line drawn on the court -- which has considerable value when trying to inspire compliance. If there were cameras set up everywhere on the road, and the speed limit was so strictly enforced that if you exceeeded it you WOULD get a ticket EVERY time, no exceptions, how many people would speed? More deterrence there than "we will see and decide whetehr to give you a ticket or not".
I rather doubt it was done to tie Stern's hands, so much as lay down exactly the law of the land to stop the ugly brawling. No appeal, no discretion, you don't do x or y happens. There is next to no advantage for David Stern's own power in such a situation, because he could just as easily have instituted such punishments on his own, and maintained discretion to play favorites (I sometimes wonder how he keeps track of all the various favorites he is supposed to play -- between them and the dozens of conspiracies, its got to be prety confusing). But it has the singlular value of being absolute, unarguable, and a flat out line drawn on the court -- which has considerable value when trying to inspire compliance. If there were cameras set up everywhere on the road, and the speed limit was so strictly enforced that if you exceeeded it you WOULD get a ticket EVERY time, no exceptions, how many people would speed? More deterrence there than "we will see and decide whetehr to give you a ticket or not".
Last edited:
I'm just off a conference call in which Stu Jackson explained his decision to suspend Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw for leaving the bench during the fracas at the end of Game 4 of the Suns-Spurs series, and I'm searching for the right words to describe my reaction.
Let's see if this does it: Jackson's decision is utterly, profoundly, alarmingly, unreasonably ridiculous.
Or how about this: Idiocy's advocate just unloaded another haymaker on common sense.
But I'm settling on something simpler: This is just plain stupid.
"This is a very unfortunate incident, but the rule is the rule," Jackson said. "It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness, and this is the right decision."
Right decision? Upholding a black and white rule when there was so much gray area here is the right thing to do? Giving people another reason to unleash NBA conspiracy theories is the right decision? Being so rigid on this one rule when there are so many others open to interpretation, that is the right decision?
Puh-leeeze, Stu.
The 15-minute conference call with Jackson was one of the most contentious I have ever been on, with Jackson even acknowledging that if the leave-the-bench rule needs to be revisited, then the league office would be wide open to revisiting it. Jackson said the ruling to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for a game each (and Robert Horry for two games) was ultimately commissioner David Stern's, but that Stern had accepted his recommendation.
The league office has historically enforced this rule rigidly, though Jackson would not speak to exactly which precedents he considered before imposing the suspensions.
But just because a rule was enforced with a lack of common sense in the past does not mean it must be enforced unreasonably in perpetuity.
I asked Bulls coach Scott Skiles about the suspensions before tonight' Bulls-Piston game, and here is what he said: "A rule is a rule, and in the past handful of years since they put that in, there have been I think less than five, maybe less than three, but there have been a couple occasions where someone just put one foot on the floor and got suspended. So if you're going to have a hard and fast rule like that, I think you've got to abide by it, and you can't make any exceptions."
So much for my previously held belief that Skiles was a reasonable guy.
This decision is just plain bad, and it's going to impact the outcome of that series.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=sheridan_chris
Let's see if this does it: Jackson's decision is utterly, profoundly, alarmingly, unreasonably ridiculous.
Or how about this: Idiocy's advocate just unloaded another haymaker on common sense.
But I'm settling on something simpler: This is just plain stupid.
"This is a very unfortunate incident, but the rule is the rule," Jackson said. "It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of correctness, and this is the right decision."
Right decision? Upholding a black and white rule when there was so much gray area here is the right thing to do? Giving people another reason to unleash NBA conspiracy theories is the right decision? Being so rigid on this one rule when there are so many others open to interpretation, that is the right decision?
Puh-leeeze, Stu.
The 15-minute conference call with Jackson was one of the most contentious I have ever been on, with Jackson even acknowledging that if the leave-the-bench rule needs to be revisited, then the league office would be wide open to revisiting it. Jackson said the ruling to suspend Diaw and Stoudemire for a game each (and Robert Horry for two games) was ultimately commissioner David Stern's, but that Stern had accepted his recommendation.
The league office has historically enforced this rule rigidly, though Jackson would not speak to exactly which precedents he considered before imposing the suspensions.
But just because a rule was enforced with a lack of common sense in the past does not mean it must be enforced unreasonably in perpetuity.
I asked Bulls coach Scott Skiles about the suspensions before tonight' Bulls-Piston game, and here is what he said: "A rule is a rule, and in the past handful of years since they put that in, there have been I think less than five, maybe less than three, but there have been a couple occasions where someone just put one foot on the floor and got suspended. So if you're going to have a hard and fast rule like that, I think you've got to abide by it, and you can't make any exceptions."
So much for my previously held belief that Skiles was a reasonable guy.
This decision is just plain bad, and it's going to impact the outcome of that series.
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=sheridan_chris
This being where Sheridan exposes his own ignorance since no one in their right mind has ever considered Scott Skiles remotely reasonable -- he's as rigid as they come.
But in this case that rigidity is precisely why he is able to understand this decision while a sloppy thinker like Sheridan flails about mindlessly.
It is precisely BECAUSE the rule has always been so rigid that it entirely takes OUT any considerations of conspiracies, one way or the other. Its precisely because there ARE no exceptions that the result here was clearly dictated, regardless of who was involved.
And that's the kicker -- people are constantly constantly complaining about how the league plays favorites, won't take action against stars etc., and here it rigidly enforces its rules against a First team All NBA player in its showcase series, and now the sloppy thought swings arouond that this is playing favorites too. Just silly. They even went so far as to say that they would be open to changing the rule this offseason -- thus showing that they too were aware of the apparent injustice here, but they enforced the rule AS IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED anyway. That's the sign of a possibly flawed rule, but a rock solid enforcement mechanicsm.
But in this case that rigidity is precisely why he is able to understand this decision while a sloppy thinker like Sheridan flails about mindlessly.
It is precisely BECAUSE the rule has always been so rigid that it entirely takes OUT any considerations of conspiracies, one way or the other. Its precisely because there ARE no exceptions that the result here was clearly dictated, regardless of who was involved.
And that's the kicker -- people are constantly constantly complaining about how the league plays favorites, won't take action against stars etc., and here it rigidly enforces its rules against a First team All NBA player in its showcase series, and now the sloppy thought swings arouond that this is playing favorites too. Just silly. They even went so far as to say that they would be open to changing the rule this offseason -- thus showing that they too were aware of the apparent injustice here, but they enforced the rule AS IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED anyway. That's the sign of a possibly flawed rule, but a rock solid enforcement mechanicsm.
It is the least gray of all their rules. Created to deter bench-clearing brawls. I don't think it has done so, necessarily. There is no more than one real brawl per year and the rule itself was established (way back in 93) w/ the NY/Phx brawl.
Note how many times NY is on this list.
93 - Knicks / Suns (KJ vs Doc Rivers, Greg Anthony comes in swingin)
94 - Heat / Hawks (playoffs, Grant Long & Doug Edwards vs Keith Askins)
94 - Knicks / Bulls (playoffs, Derek Harper vs JoJo English, spills into front row)
96 - Kings / Pacers (Michael Smith vs Dale Davis, 16 suspended)
97 - Knicks / Heat (playoffs, P.J. Brown flips Charlie Ward, Ewing/L.J./Starks/Houston susp'd)
98 - Heat / Knicks (playoffs, Zo vs L.J. & Van Gundy)
01 - Spurs / Knicks (Marcus Camby tries to knock Danny Ferry's head off)
02 - Lakers / Bulls
03 - Kings / Lakers
03 - Blazers / Warriors (Bonzi vs Chris Mills, fans throw trash at Blazers, Sheed takes it to GS lockeroom & bus)
05 - Pacers / Pistons
07 - Nuggets / Knicks
Note how many times NY is on this list.
93 - Knicks / Suns (KJ vs Doc Rivers, Greg Anthony comes in swingin)
94 - Heat / Hawks (playoffs, Grant Long & Doug Edwards vs Keith Askins)
94 - Knicks / Bulls (playoffs, Derek Harper vs JoJo English, spills into front row)
96 - Kings / Pacers (Michael Smith vs Dale Davis, 16 suspended)
97 - Knicks / Heat (playoffs, P.J. Brown flips Charlie Ward, Ewing/L.J./Starks/Houston susp'd)
98 - Heat / Knicks (playoffs, Zo vs L.J. & Van Gundy)
01 - Spurs / Knicks (Marcus Camby tries to knock Danny Ferry's head off)
02 - Lakers / Bulls
03 - Kings / Lakers
03 - Blazers / Warriors (Bonzi vs Chris Mills, fans throw trash at Blazers, Sheed takes it to GS lockeroom & bus)
05 - Pacers / Pistons
07 - Nuggets / Knicks
Last edited:
Fine, they aren't "waiving" the rule, there's merely a loophole within the rules that makes an identical action an automatic suspension after a whistle, but perfectly ok during live play. Reasonable people can disagree but imho that's a ludicrous distinction.
Regardless of whether or not they are obligated by rule to suspend Duncan and Bowen for leaving the bench and stepping on the court during live play they most certainly have the authority to do so and should do so in this specific case if only in the name of equity.
Regardless of whether or not they are obligated by rule to suspend Duncan and Bowen for leaving the bench and stepping on the court during live play they most certainly have the authority to do so and should do so in this specific case if only in the name of equity.
They have no authority to do so at all -- so far as I am aware there IS no rule stating what Duncan did is a suspendible offense. You don't go running around willy nilly making them up on the fly just because peope get their panties in a bunch and then punish people retroactively. And there's a good reason WHY there is no such rule: Duncan's action poses no threat. The leaving the bench during an altercation rule is there for a very specific reason -- to deter bench clearing brawls. So far as I know there has never been a brawl started by a player leaping off the bench and tackling an opposing player while the game is still going on. Hence no rule on suspensions for hopping up during play. Indeed, I think if you tried to enforce something made up like that out of the blue it would be instantly challenged by the Players' Union and they might very well be able to get a preliminary injunction to prevent it.
The rule Amare and Diaw ignored however has been around for 10-15 years, prominently enforced time and again, and is so prominent that every assistant one very team knows he has a primary responsibility to make sure none of his professional ball bouncing underlings does the big stupid. There is no comparison. If Stern had just pulled it out of his butt, it had never been an issue before, and Stern suddenly decided that it was illegal and so he was going to suspend them, then THAT would be B.S.. But this rule is one of the best known in the league. Amare and Diaw had every warning. They are "victims" here only of their own bout of stupidity. Nobody dragged them onto that court, and they were well aware of the rule and its consequences. If I get pulled over and given a ticket for going 90mph tommorow, its not the cop who made the mistake.
I, BTW, like the vast majority (including the league I am sure), wish this had not happened. But once it did, the league having the integrity to follow its own rules is NOT a cause for disappointment.
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".
Last edited:
I don't think the league is consistent with suspension rules...at least not in Hory's case.....I mean why two games for hard foul?...maybe one but two is two much....also for almost same hard foul on Okur, J.Richardson didn't get suspension..
"The moral of the story? Never argue minutiae with an attorney."
maybe in real world but in NBA if Duncan argue with an attorney, attorney got suspended.....
toughest team in the league with biggest whiner…..I guess whining works when toughness doesn’t
"The moral of the story? Never argue minutiae with an attorney."
maybe in real world but in NBA if Duncan argue with an attorney, attorney got suspended.....
toughest team in the league with biggest whiner…..I guess whining works when toughness doesn’t
i get that the mechanism worked, there are no favorites in its activation, etc.; but when the league openly starts to admit that, gee, well, maybe this rule isn't exactly the brightest or most effective in what it was originally meant for, that's okay?
as a person, you are okay with enforcing a wrong rule just because it was enforced correctly? in your lawn case with the woman and the axe murderer, you are okay with that?
as a person, you are okay with enforcing a wrong rule just because it was enforced correctly? in your lawn case with the woman and the axe murderer, you are okay with that?
Here's the rule:
"During an altercation, all players not taking part in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of the bench. Violators will be suspended without pay for a minimum of one game and fined up to $20,000"
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1028/1452258.html
Nothing about "live ball" vs. "dead ball." The NBA decided Duncan and Bowen weren't responding to an "altercation" in Game 4, but Amare and Diaw were. That's interpretation, not application of a cut and dry rule. They've made exceptions in the past. But they're hiding behind "precedent."
It's all interpretation, and the interpretation was stupid.
"During an altercation, all players not taking part in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of the bench. Violators will be suspended without pay for a minimum of one game and fined up to $20,000"
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1028/1452258.html
Nothing about "live ball" vs. "dead ball." The NBA decided Duncan and Bowen weren't responding to an "altercation" in Game 4, but Amare and Diaw were. That's interpretation, not application of a cut and dry rule. They've made exceptions in the past. But they're hiding behind "precedent."
It's all interpretation, and the interpretation was stupid.
agreed. i just can't believe such strict adherence to such a broken rule. in a true hoops article on espn:
A TrueHoop reader emailed a great point -- by this logic, if James Jones had noticed that Duncan and Bowen had wandered on the court in the second quarter, he should have immediately decked Francisco Elson. There's your altercation. Mr. Commissioner! Presumably Jones, Duncan, and Bowen would have all been suspended for Game 5 -- a big win for Phoenix.
A TrueHoop reader emailed a great point -- by this logic, if James Jones had noticed that Duncan and Bowen had wandered on the court in the second quarter, he should have immediately decked Francisco Elson. There's your altercation. Mr. Commissioner! Presumably Jones, Duncan, and Bowen would have all been suspended for Game 5 -- a big win for Phoenix.
Exactly, it was a make up for the Amare / Diaw suspension to not make it look too one sided.
Last year Raja Bell, clotheslined Kobe and one game suspension. Horry hip checks Nash and one game suspension.
Moral of the story - If you are going to foul some one hard just do the best you can and go at it with all your force and impose as much pain and injury as possible in one shot, cos the penalty is just a one game suspension either way.
Advise - But after you initiate the initial contact and do the damage , dont get into a fight, keep your hands down and take a blow if needed. That will get more players from their side suspended and eliminate your extra suspension
Suns are getting as much help as they can from the refs and dont even complain on that side, the reason the whole hard foul came in was because the zebras were totally one sided for the last 10 minutes of the game. Parker drives gets hit no foul, Manu drives gets hit no foul, Duncan double teamed and hacked no foul. Other end, and 1s are a parade. Just stupid , plain stupid things from Stern
Last year Raja Bell, clotheslined Kobe and one game suspension. Horry hip checks Nash and one game suspension.
Moral of the story - If you are going to foul some one hard just do the best you can and go at it with all your force and impose as much pain and injury as possible in one shot, cos the penalty is just a one game suspension either way.
Advise - But after you initiate the initial contact and do the damage , dont get into a fight, keep your hands down and take a blow if needed. That will get more players from their side suspended and eliminate your extra suspension
Suns are getting as much help as they can from the refs and dont even complain on that side, the reason the whole hard foul came in was because the zebras were totally one sided for the last 10 minutes of the game. Parker drives gets hit no foul, Manu drives gets hit no foul, Duncan double teamed and hacked no foul. Other end, and 1s are a parade. Just stupid , plain stupid things from Stern
I can only hope that some good comes out of this. The NBA needs to address this rule in the offseason. Either remove it or make it so no player can approach the altercation whether they are on the court or not. How is it any better that Manu and Duncan etc can run over and get in the middle of the fracas but someone on the bench cannot? Make everyone immediately drop into a fetal position or something for goodness sakes.
Maybe the NBA has no choice to follow the letter of the law here, but it wasn't "just" and I will not be watching any more of this series because I'm annoyed at having the competition messed up by this flawed rule. Yeah, the NBA won't give a hoot, but at least I'll feel a little better.
Maybe the NBA has no choice to follow the letter of the law here, but it wasn't "just" and I will not be watching any more of this series because I'm annoyed at having the competition messed up by this flawed rule. Yeah, the NBA won't give a hoot, but at least I'll feel a little better.
Last edited: