should amare / diaw get suspended?

[Gargamel]

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...

...

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.

That's why the situations were different. I don't think Duncan was anticipating an altercation. He immediately got up to celebrate a dunk and he went on to the court, which you see nearly every night around the league.

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.

That's the thing tho. If the Suns bench stayed put like they knew they were supposed to, only Horry would've been suspended. Giving Horry 2 games was an obvious concession to the Suns as well. How does Raja clothesline someone to the floor and get 1 game while Horry gets 2 for a hip check that Nash sold even more after falling? Stu Jackson tried to appease the Suns fans a bit there.

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.

That I'll agree w/. They did stagger the 97 Knick suspensions (2 men out at a time). However, they'd have another controversy on their hands when they decided WHO was out for Gm5 and Gm6. It would look pretty obvious if they let Amare play in Gm5.

 

[Gargamel]

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.

The boundary isn't the issue here. The claim is "what is an altercation"? If there was an altercation when Duncan got up, he would've been suspended, no ifs buts mights or maybes. You're not allowed to cross that sideline.

The other issue is why dirty tactics aren't punished while getting off the bench is.

In Gm4 of the 2000 WCF, Scottie Pippen and Rick Fox had a scuffle. Brian Shaw got off the bench and took no more than 3 steps on the court and did nothing. He got a 1-gm suspension. Later in the game, Pippen ran into a blind screen by John Salley in garbage time and he ran up and rabbit punched Salley on the head w/ a closed fist. No suspension for Scottie, yet Shaw sits out.

If there is a problem it is that the league is incompetent or scared to make suspensions on borderline stuff like that, which is why Bowen is still sticking his foot under landing players. The league can only function when the particular rule is black and white, otherwise they won't rock the boat and they'll rationalize dirt (check Ronnie Nunn's propaganda show on NBA TV for proof of that).

 

[Superman]

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.

That's the thing, though. They don't have to touch someone in order to get seriously hurt.

And it's almost impossible to establish "intent".

 

[Superman]

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 don't think that takes into affect the intent of the rule, and the "zero tolerance" way it's been applied for years. The point is to make it clear to the players that the only way they can stay out of the altercation is to stay on the bench.

Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw going to check on Steve Nash would have meant that they were right in the middle of the altercation. Even if they were only to make it halfway, them running towards the altercation might incite players on the Spurs bench to join in as well, and then you have a bench clearing brawl.

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone on the bench stays on the bench, in effect keeping themselves out of the altercation. The NBA - which means the owners and the League officials - have decided that leaving the bench area is equal to joining the altercation, even if you only go five feet and then turn around and come back. By the time you have physically entered the altercation, it's too late. The point is to keep anyone from even getting close to escalating the situation, and the only way to do that is to stay on the bench.

 

[4cwebb]

I don't think that takes into affect the intent of the rule, and the "zero tolerance" way it's been applied for years. The point is to make it clear to the players that the only way they can stay out of the altercation is to stay on the bench.

I agree that the way in which I would change the rule does not reflect it's current intent and past application, but I think the suspensions of Amare and Diaw provided an example of how the current rule may be violated without leading to an escalation in an altercation. I think that unless a player's actions could cause an altercation to escalate because he has actually entered the altercation, there is no real need to suspend him.

Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw going to check on Steve Nash would have meant that they were right in the middle of the altercation. Even if they were only to make it halfway, them running towards the altercation might incite players on the Spurs bench to join in as well, and then you have a bench clearing brawl.

If they had made it that far, I would agree with their suspension. But neither of them made it to the area where the altercation was taking place. I understand that the current rule is intended to prevent bench clearing brawls, and that the NBA thinks that is more important than permitting a player to have a minor reaction toward his teammate getting hip-checked into the scorer's table.

But in this case, I think the rule's flaws have been exposed, and so it should be changed going forward so that it does not result in the suspension of players who may leave the "bench area" but not enter into an altercation.

Basically, the application of the rule in this instance resulted in 4 games being missed due to suspension. Horry's foul was not a two-game suspension type of foul. It wasn't even close to being the hardest or most dangerous foul of this year's playoffs. But the NBA felt it necessary to suspend him for two games largely because of the rule that Amare and Diaw had to be suspended (imho).

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone on the bench stays on the bench, in effect keeping themselves out of the altercation. The NBA - which means the owners and the League officials - have decided that leaving the bench area is equal to joining the altercation, even if you only go five feet and then turn around and come back. By the time you have physically entered the altercation, it's too late. The point is to keep anyone from even getting close to escalating the situation, and the only way to do that is to stay on the bench.

The only thing I would disagree with is that the only way to prevent an escalation is to keep everyone on the bench. Not everyone was kept on the bench in this situation, but it didn't escalate because Amare and Diaw left the bench area. In fact, their presence outside of the bench area had no impact on the altercation. And that is why I think the rule needs to be revised going forward. Any revision may make application less cut and dry, but I think the application in this instance was more severe than it needed to be. If this happens in the future, I think a heavy fine may be a sufficient reminder that players don't need to leave the bench area (how about a Cuban-esque $500,000 just to get their attention?).