The NBA..........where hypocrisy happens.

[DirtyAcres]

What a joke this league has become.

Kevin Garnett neither suspended or fined for making intentional physical contact with the ref. A player also came onto the court from Boston's bench.

How screwed must Suns fans feel right now.


Looks like Stern is willing to do anything to get a Celtics/Lakers finals. What a crock of ****.

 

[fnordius]

How screwed must Suns fans feel right now.

I lost my last doubts when I saw Bibby fouling Kobe's elbow with his face, saw Vlade and Scot fouling Shaq from a distance. Since then, nothing has been able to shock me about NBA reffing, especially during the playoffs.

Suns fans: welcome to the club.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Right... Stern is so determined to get the Lakers in the Finals that they went out in the first round two years in a row, and didn't qualify for the playoffs the year before that. They're so determined to have "star power" in the Finals that the Spurs have made it to the Finals (and won) two of the last three years, and are the prohibitive favorite to make it this year, too.

Oh wait, that's right, the Spurs are Stern's "boys." He's so determined to get ratings and make money, but he's going to pull strings to get the least popular team in the league into the Finals year after year, because... why would he do that, again?

I thought we went over this last year: if Stern were fixing the league, the Spurs would have lost to the Suns, this year and last year.

I imagine that, if the Finals ends up Spurs/Pistons (which is my pick), your head may well explode.

 

[kupman]

What a joke this league has become.

Kevin Garnett neither suspended or fined for making intentional physical contact with the ref. A player also came onto the court from Boston's bench.

How screwed must Suns fans feel right now.


Looks like Stern is willing to do anything to get a Celtics/Lakers finals. What a crock of ****.

I agree 100%. I can't make sense of it. Garnett intentionally pushed the ref away. How is that tolerated? It should be a 1 game suspension at a minimum IMHO.

 

[twocents]

Right... Stern is so determined to get the Lakers in the Finals that they went out in the first round two years in a row, and didn't qualify for the playoffs the year before that. They're so determined to have "star power" in the Finals that the Spurs have made it to the Finals (and won) two of the last three years, and are the prohibitive favorite to make it this year, too.

Oh wait, that's right, the Spurs are Stern's "boys." He's so determined to get ratings and make money, but he's going to pull strings to get the least popular team in the league into the Finals year after year, because... why would he do that, again?

I thought we went over this last year: if Stern were fixing the league, the Spurs would have lost to the Suns, this year and last year.

I imagine that, if the Finals ends up Spurs/Pistons (which is my pick), your head may well explode.

all of this withstanding, are you claiming that the nba is unbiased and the latest kg incident is just a misfortune?

 

[uolj]

What a joke this league has become.

Kevin Garnett neither suspended or fined for making intentional physical contact with the ref. A player also came onto the court from Boston's bench.

How screwed must Suns fans feel right now.


Looks like Stern is willing to do anything to get a Celtics/Lakers finals. What a crock of ****.

You're kidding, right? Garnett wasn't the only one making contact with a ref as the ref was holding him back. He didn't initiate contact, either. It's not cut and dry, but I don't see how you can complain about it or call bias. Stojakovic's suspension a couple years ago is an example of what that rule applies to.

The guys who were out on the floor were already on the floor when the altercation happened and didn't make any movement towards it. That's why they weren't suspended.

If you're not actively looking for a conspiracy, it's a lot harder to find it.
[yt=Garnett-Pachulia]XKsS-3j9sfg[/yt]

 

[fnordius]

the least popular team in the league

If sales of team merchandise is any indication, they're 9th most popular, which is excellent considering that they're the #37 market. As much as the NBA seems to like large markets, they also seem to like "dynasties." I guess you can't always have it be both, eh? Some years, the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls and 6ers all suck, and somebody has to win.

Trivia: What was the last NBA champion, other than the Spurs, which was not from one of the top 11 TV markets? Answer: Seattle (#14 market), 1979.

Trivia 2: Since 1955, how has market size correlated with titles?
#1-4 markets: 20 titles
#5-11 markets: 23 titles
#12-53 markets: 8 titles, 4 of which went to the Spurs.

I'm not saying it's all planned that way, but, for whatever reason, that's how things have happened.

 

[DirtyAcres]

Right... Stern is so determined to get the Lakers in the Finals that they went out in the first round two years in a row, and didn't qualify for the playoffs the year before that. They're so determined to have "star power" in the Finals that the Spurs have made it to the Finals (and won) two of the last three years, and are the prohibitive favorite to make it this year, too.

Oh wait, that's right, the Spurs are Stern's "boys." He's so determined to get ratings and make money, but he's going to pull strings to get the least popular team in the league into the Finals year after year, because... why would he do that, again?

I thought we went over this last year: if Stern were fixing the league, the Spurs would have lost to the Suns, this year and last year.

I imagine that, if the Finals ends up Spurs/Pistons (which is my pick), your head may well explode.

Funny that you failed to respond to the entire point of my thread and instead provided a rebuttal to an off-handed comment I half jokingly threw in at the end.

You explain to me how what happened to Garnett was fair? According to the rules, he should have been suspended, end of story. And how does the Boston player who left the bench, not get suspended like the Suns players last year.

I'm not fishing for the conspiracy theory here, I'm pissed at how differently these situations were handled.

I also find it funny how the media cry about the Suns situation last year is now suddenly silent.

 

[uolj]

I'm not fishing for the conspiracy theory here, I'm pissed at how differently these situations were handled.

I also find it funny how the media cry about the Suns situation last year is now suddenly silent.

Because the situations were different. If the majority of people are treating them differently, then maybe they are just different.

The Suns players came off the bench toward the altercation, the Celtics players were already standing off the bench and did not come towards the altercation. Different situations.

Garnett was struggling to get free from an official that was holding him. Players who get suspended for touching a ref do so because they initiate contact. Different situations.

 

[kupman]

Garnett was struggling to get free from an official that was holding him. Players who get suspended for touching a ref do so because they initiate contact. Different situations.

So you are allowed to push a ref if the ref touches you first (trying to keep you from fighting, no less)?

 

[uolj]

So you are allowed to push a ref if the ref touches you first (trying to keep you from fighting, no less)?

You are not suspended for prying yourself away from somebody holding on to you, even if that person is a referee.

Can you name another instance of somebody being suspended for contact with a referee that started with the referee holding that person back from an altercation? I can only vaguely remember one possibility, but I don't know if the person got suspended or if there was more to it.

 

[Jerryaki]

i don't think a person 7' tall "pries away" from someone who's about a foot shorter, not to mention garnett was pushing the ref away so he can move toward the scrum. the nba's gonna call it anyway it damn well pleases though, because it's in their power to do so.

 

[kupman]

Just a thought - could you imagine the s***storm that would be going on if the exact same thing happened with Artest.

 

[DirtyAcres]

I'm not able to watch it again but I recall a player coming off the bench on to the court

 

[Bricklayer]

You are not suspended for prying yourself away from somebody holding on to you, even if that person is a referee.

Can you name another instance of somebody being suspended for contact with a referee that started with the referee holding that person back from an altercation? I can only vaguely remember one possibility, but I don't know if the person got suspended or if there was more to it.

This is the correct interpretation here -- the referee initiated contact, not the other way around. The rule is there to prevent players from physically accosting/intimidating refs, which obviously wasn't the case here. If KG had pushed the ref to the floor or something, sure.

As for the off the bench thing, I think uolj is probably right too regarding the interpretation, although it had never occurred to me before. The rule makes it illegal to leave the bench area when an altercation takes place -- its an anti-brawl rule. But if you are already not in the bench area, then you can't be leaving it. That interpreation might depend on when you say the altercation began. They obviously hopped up on the initial play, but made no move toward the court after guys started scuffling.

 

[tradepeja]

Right... Stern is so determined to get the Lakers in the Finals that they went out in the first round two years in a row, and didn't qualify for the playoffs the year before that. They're so determined to have "star power" in the Finals that the Spurs have made it to the Finals (and won) two of the last three years, and are the prohibitive favorite to make it this year, too.

Oh wait, that's right, the Spurs are Stern's "boys." He's so determined to get ratings and make money, but he's going to pull strings to get the least popular team in the league into the Finals year after year, because... why would he do that, again?

I thought we went over this last year: if Stern were fixing the league, the Spurs would have lost to the Suns, this year and last year.

I imagine that, if the Finals ends up Spurs/Pistons (which is my pick), your head may well explode.

Nice red herring rebuttal there Slim. For sake of argument, I'll bite.

Stern wasn't the one who set up the Spurs/Suns series last year. As far as I know, he had nothing to do with the illegal point shaving/gambling that was going on. Donaghy and his mob ties are the ones that got the Spurs into the WCF. Sure, Stern and Jackson suspended the players themselves, but it wasn't the suspension game that lost PHX that series. It was every other game. Every other horribly, atrociously called game.

This year was very little different. I'll concede that, despite many phantom calls to the benefit of SA, the Suns lost this series much more to their own fault. Especially those turnovers at the end of game 5.....gah.


Anyway, I think it is a completely reasonable argument to believe that Stern and many higher-ups in the NBA would love to see a Lakers-Celts Finals, for all the obvious reasons. Are they acting on this desire? Who knows? Sometimes, just watching a Laker game makes you think so.

God, I can't believe I'm going to be rooting for the Spurs this WCF. Shoot me now.

 

[Gargamel]

I imagine that, if the Finals ends up Spurs/Pistons (which is my pick), your head may well explode.

Top 2 seeds making the Finals? Never happen on its own.

 

[Gargamel]

Sure, Stern and Jackson suspended the players themselves, but it wasn't the suspension game that lost PHX that series.It was every other game. Every other horribly, atrociously called game.

Lol. That's the excuse that the Suns fans were using for the loss. Horry's foul and the suspensions were the tide that turned the series. Why do you need the refs? Ain't any different than the 97 and 98 NY/MIA series where teams got sunk due to suspensions. 1997 was an even bigger bust on players leaving the bench, there were so many players in the mix, they had to stagger the suspensions.

 

[Superman]

If sales of team merchandise is any indication, they're 9th most popular, which is excellent considering that they're the #37 market.

I think a much more accurate indication of a team's popularity is how many people watch them on the biggest stage the NBA has -- the Finals. The Spurs consistently have the lowest rated Finals, including the absolute lowest ever last season, when the most popular player in the League was in the series.

I don't think the Spurs are the least popular team in the NBA, but they're certainly no crowd pleaser, dynasty or not. If actual accomplishments sold jerseys, Duncan would be #1 on that list; I doubt that he's even top 20, because he's not a fan favorite outside of San Antonio.

I think the point is clear, which is that a conspiracy to get the Spurs in the Finals is actually counterproductive for the NBA. Especially compared with getting the Suns there; there's no doubt who the more popular team is.

And, with regard to the OP, how is it that people still hang on to Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw's suspensions -- due to their poor judgment -- as proof that there's a conspiracy against the Suns and for the Spurs? Had that been a regular season game and those two were suspended because of their actions, we wouldn't even remember it. I don't understand why the League should have bent the rules - rules that everyone is aware of, rules that were broken - just because it's the Playoffs.

By the way, that rule is in place for the sake of the players' safety. Ask Rudy Tomjanovich and Kermit Washington. That is not a rule that the NBA should skirt around for the sake of helping the Suns win a series.

 

[Superman]

Nice red herring rebuttal there Slim. For sake of argument, I'll bite.

Stern wasn't the one who set up the Spurs/Suns series last year. As far as I know, he had nothing to do with the illegal point shaving/gambling that was going on. Donaghy and his mob ties are the ones that got the Spurs into the WCF. Sure, Stern and Jackson suspended the players themselves, but it wasn't the suspension game that lost PHX that series. It was every other game. Every other horribly, atrociously called game.

Sooo ...

Tim Donaghy called every important game up to that point, making sure the Spurs won, and did so at the bidding of his mob bosses?

I mean, I know the guy was busted and he definitely tampered with the outcome of a lot of games, but if I remember correctly, he only officiated one game in that series, and the Suns won that one game.

I could be wrong, by the way. But the fact is that you can't lean on the Donaghy scandal to prove that the Suns got screwed. Bottom line is that the Spurs have had their number for four years now, and this year's convincing series is evidence of that.

 

[Jerryaki]

By the way, that rule is in place for the sake of the players' safety. Ask Rudy Tomjanovich and Kermit Washington. That is not a rule that the NBA should skirt around for the sake of helping the Suns win a series.

while the spirit of what you said is true, neither should a rule be in place where somehow the aggressor (spurs) benefits from a malicious act. the writers have argued this when it happened, what if the suns just hired a bruiser to be 12th man, and beat the crap out of parker in front of the spurs bench? wouldn't you expect the spurs bench to react to defend parker? i think it's sort of obvious that this rule is broken.

 

[DirtyAcres]

And, with regard to the OP, how is it that people still hang on to Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw's suspensions -- due to their poor judgment -- as proof that there's a conspiracy against the Suns and for the Spurs?

I never once said there was a conspiracy against the Suns and for the Spurs. I was questioning how two Suns get suspended when a Boston player did the same thing.

 

[uolj]

I never once said there was a conspiracy against the Suns and for the Spurs. I was questioning how two Suns get suspended when a Boston player did the same thing.

Luckily, since the Boston player did not do the same thing, there is no conspiracy or hypocrisy.

 

[fnordius]

Can you name another instance of somebody being suspended for contact with a referee that started with the referee holding that person back from an altercation?

Antoine Walker, scuffling with Jermaine O'Neal, game 4 of the Pacers-Celtics playoff series, 29 April 2005. Ref intervened, Walker pushed him away, got suspended. O'Neal didn't touch the ref, so got off with a $10,000 fine for fighting.

 

[Merdiesel]

I lost my last doubts when I saw Bibby fouling Kobe's elbow with his face, saw Vlade and Scot fouling Shaq from a distance. Since then, nothing has been able to shock me about NBA reffing, especially during the playoffs.

Suns fans: welcome to the club.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You explain to me how what happened to Garnett was fair? According to the rules, he should have been suspended, end of story.

This was addressed by others much more tactfully than I would have done.

And how does the Boston player who left the bench, not get suspended like the Suns players last year.

Kendrick Perkins (aka "The Boston Player") didn't get suspended for the same reason that Marvin Williams (aka "The Atlanta Player") didn't get suspended: because league officials determined that they didn't violate the rule (I can only surmise that you didn't mention Williams because the Hawks are the underdogs, since TNT clearly showed him stepping onto the court as well). And, lest the difference can't be distinguished, Perkins and Williams took a step onto the court, and were immediately ushered back to their respective benches by the assistant coaches. Stoudemire and Diaw (pka "The Phoenix Players") ran from the bench all the way to the scorer's table looking to get involved in a skirmish. The two events can only be considered to be the same thing in the same way that a Guided Missile Cruiser can be considered the same thing as a Guided Missile Frigate.

There is no conspiracy, and there is no hypocrisy.

PS - **** the Suns.

 

[uolj]

Antoine Walker, scuffling with Jermaine O'Neal, game 4 of the Pacers-Celtics playoff series, 29 April 2005. Ref intervened, Walker pushed him away, got suspended. O'Neal didn't touch the ref, so got off with a $10,000 fine for fighting.

Don't have video, but according to this story, "Walker grabbed referee Tom Washington by the arm in an attempt to move him out of the way."

Nice try, though.

 

[fnordius]

Don't have video, but according to this story, "Walker grabbed referee Tom Washington by the arm in an attempt to move him out of the way."

Nice try, though.

Oh, grabbing by the arm and shoving is a suspension, but elbowing in the chest and shoving is not.

I understand.

 

[DirtyAcres]

This was addressed by others much more tactfully than I would have done.

Kendrick Perkins (aka "The Boston Player") didn't get suspended for the same reason that Marvin Williams (aka "The Atlanta Player") didn't get suspended: because league officials determined that they didn't violate the rule (I can only surmise that you didn't mention Williams because the Hawks are the underdogs, since TNT clearly showed him stepping onto the court as well). And, lest the difference can't be distinguished, Perkins and Williams took a step onto the court, and were immediately ushered back to their respective benches by the assistant coaches. Stoudemire and Diaw (pka "The Phoenix Players") ran from the bench all the way to the scorer's table looking to get involved in a skirmish. The two events can only be considered to be the same thing in the same way that a Guided Missile Cruiser can be considered the same thing as a Guided Missile Frigate.

There is no conspiracy, and there is no hypocrisy.

PS - **** the Suns.

First of all, you didn't even attempt to address it.

Anyways,


Agreed..............**** the Suns. I have no interest in them. Their situation is clearly being used as a benchmark.

I'm trying to figure out the why they were punished and no Boston/Hawks players were. And substitute Raja Bell/Iverson/Rasheed with the same actions KG pulled and tell me none of them would have been suspended.

I like Boston and I like KG..........I don't like seeing the league let certain players get away with things though.

 

[uolj]

Oh, grabbing by the arm and shoving is a suspension, but elbowing in the chest and shoving is not.

I understand.

I already explained the difference before that example was posted. If you want to ignore it, that's fine.

The difference is that the referee initiated the contact in this instance.

I'm not trying to say the rulings were correct or just or anything like that, I'm just saying I don't see how they're hypocritical. They came up with a standard and are basically following it.