ergo the Duncan situation?
In the SAME FRIKIN GAME?
You could argue the points for Amare/Diaw to be suspended...
you could argue the points for Duncan not to be suspended...
but to agrgue them both SIMULTANEUSLY in the SAME game, is hogwash. You simply cannot split hairs so fine when the end result is to REWARD THE TEAM THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE for the mess. Period. the league could've chosen to recognize that Amare/Diaw didn't do anything to actually excalate the situation (unlikely) OR chosen to recognize that Duncan did MORE to escalate THAT situation (but still very little to escalate) (more likely). But to drop the cards where they did was just plain bullskit.
In the SAME FRIKIN GAME?
You could argue the points for Amare/Diaw to be suspended...
you could argue the points for Duncan not to be suspended...
but to agrgue them both SIMULTANEUSLY in the SAME game, is hogwash. You simply cannot split hairs so fine when the end result is to REWARD THE TEAM THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE for the mess. Period. the league could've chosen to recognize that Amare/Diaw didn't do anything to actually excalate the situation (unlikely) OR chosen to recognize that Duncan did MORE to escalate THAT situation (but still very little to escalate) (more likely). But to drop the cards where they did was just plain bullskit.
i agree with you, that rewarding the instigating team is unfair, but the league apparently is concerned with "correctness" and not "fairness."
what is REALLY eye-opening is that in the duncan situation, james jones should've shoved francisco elson afterwards, and then duncan and bowen would've been suspended for a game. a rule that actually incentivizes such an act is one that is clearly broken.