should amare / diaw get suspended?
- Thread starter mdme
- Start date
It's pretty obvious this was a horrible decision and Stern is garbage. Horry slams Nash on the ground and for that... his team is handed the series. Amare and Diaw just react and want to go see if their team captain is okay and they get suspended? What the hell?
This is a pretty awful decision. D'antoni should send Pat Burke in to go own Ginobili and Duncan.
This is a pretty awful decision. D'antoni should send Pat Burke in to go own Ginobili and Duncan.
I do know that a decision has been reached. The poll is here to assess whether or not we agree with the NBA. I do see your point in not wanting to vote because of the qualifying comments...I only added them because I felt the main reason for suspending them would be that "rules are rules", and that the main reason for not suspending them would be "that they did not get involved in any altercation". As for the third option, I saw this flying around various forums as to if the NBA truly sticks to it's rules, then...Duncan should be suspended too. (otherwise it still counts as a yes vote).
fansinceday1
Starter
Yet nothing for Bowens obvious cheap shots and Duncan leaving the bench. This sucks so bad.
Insomniacal Fan
Starter
Stupid rule. No fight, no foul.
mcsluggo
Starter
BS. Once again a team gets REWARDED for being class-1 A-holes.
Rober Horry, wins the series for the Spurs. Brilliant.
At this point I would root for the fivesome of Adaolf, Mao, Generalisimo, Osama and Uday against the $%&*#$% spurs. I hope they all get irritable bowel syndrome and have to watch the rest of the series between their legs as they are doubled up over the crapper. I despise this.
Rober Horry, wins the series for the Spurs. Brilliant.
At this point I would root for the fivesome of Adaolf, Mao, Generalisimo, Osama and Uday against the $%&*#$% spurs. I hope they all get irritable bowel syndrome and have to watch the rest of the series between their legs as they are doubled up over the crapper. I despise this.
Typical NBA League Office garbage. They painted themselves into a corner with this 'black and white' rule that was never realistic. It almost always punishes the team that didn't start the incident and thereby encourages someone to start an incident.
Bowen is the dirtiest player in the league and he was able to get away to two dirty fouls, kicking Amare and then kneeing Nash. But he will be playing in the next game.
The League Office is ruining basketball.
Bowen is the dirtiest player in the league and he was able to get away to two dirty fouls, kicking Amare and then kneeing Nash. But he will be playing in the next game.
The League Office is ruining basketball.
I'm not a Suns fan. And I'm not arguing that a rule is a rule. I'm complaining that a series will be decided by the league office's idiocy in making this rule in the first place.
Arena Skeptic
Bench
Just trying to sway a few opinions...
My vote is for, "Oh, heck no!"
Read this article before you deride me:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jack_mccallum/05/16/suspensions/index.html?cnn=yes
In particular:
Wow, if that isn't just about the dumbest viewpoint imaginable.
My vote is for, "Oh, heck no!"
Read this article before you deride me:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jack_mccallum/05/16/suspensions/index.html?cnn=yes
In particular:
Wow, if that isn't just about the dumbest viewpoint imaginable.
Why? It's not his job to be "fair." It's his job to enforce the rules.
Insomniacal Fan
Starter
After thinking about it, and reading the fine discussion over in the other thread, I'd have to change my mind. The league can not ignore this rule any more than they can ignore the three point line or the shot clock.
This all reminds me of the Samaki Walker half-court halftime heave in the 2002 WCF. It was simple to see on the replay that the ball had not left his hand before the time had expired. Millions of people knew the call was bogus. But at the time the league didn't allow for review of last second shots. They fixed that the next season, but they can't just make up new rules in the middle of a playoff series. Their hands are tied.
This all reminds me of the Samaki Walker half-court halftime heave in the 2002 WCF. It was simple to see on the replay that the ball had not left his hand before the time had expired. Millions of people knew the call was bogus. But at the time the league didn't allow for review of last second shots. They fixed that the next season, but they can't just make up new rules in the middle of a playoff series. Their hands are tied.
You think this is an idiotic rule?
Top 10 Unsportsmanlike Plays
Pay close attention at the 12 second mark of this video. The rule was made in order to prevent this from happening.
Arena Skeptic
Bench
The rule states that the players must stay in the vicinity of the bench; that's just what Amare and Boris did. So I don't buy it.
There is no room for flexibility in out of bounds calls; there is when the rule says, "in the vicinity." It's not a rigid rule.
It may be mis-written, and maybe even mis-applied. But it's not a bad rule, and certainly not an idiotic rule.
No they didn't. Relative to scale, the scorer's table is only in the "vicinity" of the bench in the same sense that San Francisco is in the "vicinity" of Sacramento.
Gargamel
Starter
There are probably only a few posters on this board who were around in the 70s, but it bears mentioning that brawls were seen by Larry O'Brien as a big problem back then too. The Kermit/Rudy situation was the straw. That situation came only 20 or so games after Kareem punched Kent Benson square in the face and broke his own hand. First step towards where we are today was to ratchet up suspensions. Kermit got 20 or so games, which was the longest league suspension until Artest. Next step came years later w/ suspensions for throwing swings (w/ or w/o contact). Next step was to give flagrants for fouling guys in mid-air so when they crash to the floor, their teammates aren't irate.
To back up Superman's point about people leaving the bench, Kermit said that he was leery of people running up on him from behind. Even before Rudy, he got into a fight against Buffalo where he was blindsided by the teammate of the man he was fighting. He also fought Dave Cowens once and a teammate of Cowens was rushing in until he saw Dave get backhanded. If you've ever seen any fight videos on the web, you'll find countless examples of a guy delivering a beating to another and all of a sudden he gets clocked by the loser's friend(s).
Anything to deter players from running into situations is necessary. We've all seen numerous occasions where a hard foul occurs and players/assts hold each other back on the sidelines. Even with the rule, there is one big time brawl nearly every year. If the rule wasn't in place, we'd probably have more smaller-scale incidents to add to that.
While I agree wholeheartedly and still get sick to my stomach just thinking about the Rudy thing, I do think the "zero tolerance" part needs to be revised. There are extenuating circumstances at times that I feel really should be considered.
Don't get me wrong. If the rule is there I think it needed to be enforced consistently. I'm just lobbying for a revision to the rule...
Gargamel
Starter
How should it be revised iyo?
My thing is, I don't get why it needs to be changed just because people seem to feel sorry for the Suns and/or like them. I could be wrong, but I don't recall anyone outside of NY asking for the rule to be changed after Ewing, Houston, Starks, and LJ were suspended 10 yrs ago (for something that P.J. Brown started).
Last edited:
The Suns have a higher Q rating, it would seem.
Gargamel
Starter
If the rule is changed, that sorta goes against their supporters' claims that the league is against em.
And I just know Stern is gonna go soft on this one being how sensitive the league is towards accusations of bias and stringpulling.
It's human nature to stand up and be drawn closer to something like this. Amare IMHO should have been suspended because he was stopped from heading towards Horry by one of the assistant coaches. From what I saw, however, Boris Diaw was more concerned with Steve Nash and appeared to be heading towards him.
I think Duncan and Bowen should also have been suspended because they moved towards the court in anticipation of an altercation that didn't come to fruition. At least that's what I saw...
This whole episode gave an unfair advantage to the Spurs compounded by the injustice of one of their players actually causing everything in the first place.
If either Amare or Boris had actually made contact with a Spurs player, then that would be entirely different. But they didn't - and I still don't think Diaw had any intentions in that regard.
One way to make the rule more palatable to me would be to NOT have the decisions made so quickly. As I said, I think it's about an even playing field. The league took that away from the Suns because of something the Spurs did. That's not fair and it just doesn't sit right with me. If one Spur player gets suspended for his actions, I think only one Sun player - at the most - should have been suspended for the response.
Alternatively, I think the suspensions could have been staggered. One player out for game 5 and one player for game 6. That at least would have negated the advantage Horry gained for his team by being a jerk.
Arena Skeptic
Bench
Draw a box on the floor around each bench. If a coach or player ventures out of it, they are penalized.
I think players should be allowed to at least stand up in emotional times. This puts a visible boundary down not to cross and eiminates interpretation.
While they are at it, move all cameras and fans at least 5' from the court to help prevent injury to players.
4cwebb
Starter
It seems to me that as long as a player doesn't enter into an altercation, he should not be suspended, even if the player leaves the bench area (like Amare and Diaw). Intent shouldn't matter in any way, shape or form, imho, if nothing results from that intent. I don't care if Amare were be pinned down by all of the Suns' assistant coaches to stop him from entering the altercation...if he doesn't enter into the altercation (and so does not cause it to escalate), who cares?
I understand the application of the rule in this instance, but I think the rule should be revised to take into account the fact that leaving the bench area does not in and of itself escalate an altercation among the 10 players on the floor. If a player enters into the altercation after the leaving the bench area, he should be suspended, but not until he actually physically enters into the altercation (even if it he only enters the altercation in a peace-making capacity).
I understand the application of the rule in this instance, but I think the rule should be revised to take into account the fact that leaving the bench area does not in and of itself escalate an altercation among the 10 players on the floor. If a player enters into the altercation after the leaving the bench area, he should be suspended, but not until he actually physically enters into the altercation (even if it he only enters the altercation in a peace-making capacity).
Similar threads
