Anyone have a screen capture of Duncan on the floor?

[mribnik]

Unfortunately the way the rule is written that's correct.

He also said Bowen wasn't suspended for his cheapshots because they can't determine intent. he said there was contact with Nash thus the foul, there was no contact with Amare thus no foul.

Which is sort of like saying until he actually hurts someone with those cheapshots we can't do anything which is completely bass ackwards.

That's the part that bothers me the most. Bowen has a history of kicking players, sticking his foot out on jumpshots, etc., yet they can't determine intent with him and they CAN with Amare, Diaw and Duncan? I can't believe they could possibly determine Diaw was going to do anything other than check on Steve Nash. The only other thing I could see Diaw doing in that situation is leaving the bench to get a cup of coffee and a croissant.

 

[Russ Smith]

That's the part that bothers me the most. Bowen has a history of kicking players, sticking his foot out on jumpshots, etc., yet they can't determine intent with him and they CAN with Amare, Diaw and Duncan? I can't believe they could possibly determine Diaw was going to do anything other than check on Steve Nash. The only other thing I could see Diaw doing in that situation is leaving the bench to get a cup of coffee and a croissant.

They're not determining intent with amare and Diaw the rule says if there is an altercation, any player going on the court from the bench is suspended. It's specifically so that refs don't have to guess, is he coming out to keep the peace, or to escalte the incident.

With Duncan he said he didn't belong on the court(and probably should have gotten a T IMHO) but because it wasn't an altercation, the rule doesn't apply.

IN neither case were they determining intent of the players.

It really sucks because it probably ruins the next game unless the Suns can really rally and pull it off.

The rule clearly needs to be changed but I do understand why they did it this way, they don't want to put the onus on the refs to decide the intent of the guy coming out on the court.

Of course the really crappy thing is basically the Spurs got rewarded for Horry cheapshotting Nash, which is completely against the spirit of the rules.

 

[mribnik]

They're not determining intent with amare and Diaw the rule says if there is an altercation, any player going on the court from the bench is suspended. It's specifically so that refs don't have to guess, is he coming out to keep the peace, or to escalte the incident.

With Duncan he said he didn't belong on the court(and probably should have gotten a T IMHO) but because it wasn't an altercation, the rule doesn't apply.

IN neither case were they determining intent of the players.

It really sucks because it probably ruins the next game unless the Suns can really rally and pull it off.

The rule clearly needs to be changed but I do understand why they did it this way, they don't want to put the onus on the refs to decide the intent of the guy coming out on the court.

Of course the really crappy thing is basically the Spurs got rewarded for Horry cheapshotting Nash, which is completely against the spirit of the rules.

That's the thing though, Stu went out of his way to say that they determined Amare and Diaw were clearly going to escalate the fight, not just check on Steve Nash. He said it this morning on 1st and 10. Why say it at all if it wasn't necessary to consider it?

Edit: He also explained how they looked at Duncan's face to determine that he was wincing at the initial fall and that they were able to determine his intent based on that. That's ridiculous. The rule must allow them to determine intent otherwise they wouldn't have looked at it. Furthermore, if it does, why did they easily determine Amare and Diaw's intent they way they did?

 

[Russ Smith]

That's the thing though, Stu went out of his way to say that they determined Amare and Diaw were clearly going to escalate the fight, not just check on Steve Nash. He said it this morning on 1st and 10. Why say it at all if it wasn't necessary to consider it?

Edit: He also explained how they looked at Duncan's face to determine that he was wincing at the initial fall and that they were able to determine his intent based on that. That's ridiculous. The rule must allow them to determine intent otherwise they wouldn't have looked at it. Furthermore, if it does, why did they easily determine Amare and Diaw's intent they way they did?

Gotcha, he didn't go into that detail when he was on Mike and Mike.

He did mention the wincing but he said he didn't belong on the court but since there was nothing happening on the court, the rule didn't apply.

But I agree he's just confusing the issue more by adding what he did since he himself said the rule was black and white.

 

[D-Dogg]

There should be technicals given for players going on the court, IMO, as Duncan did. No altercation though, no suspension. It's pretty damn clear..but Duncan should have gotten a post-event tech added to his stable of what, three techs?

Bench players do go on the floor quite often during the course of play and refs don't do anything about it, though I thought it was a technical.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

There should be technicals given for players going on the court, IMO, as Duncan did. No altercation though, no suspension. It's pretty damn clear..but Duncan should have gotten a post-event tech added to his stable of what, three techs?

Bench players do go on the floor quite often during the course of play and refs don't do anything about it, though I thought it was a technical.

You need 6 in the postseason.

 

[__SA__]

Nash flopped too, right?

he didnt flop, he got steamrolled.

...that make you feel better????

 

[mkapp]

the rule says if there is an altercation, any player going on the court from the bench is suspended.

so what determines the definition of an altercation?

al·ter·ca·tion /ˌɔltərˈkeɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-ter-key-shuhn]
a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.

so by definition Stern & Stu just created an 'altercation', so all players who go on the court for Game 5 should be suspended? That doesnt sound fair...but its correct, and thats what matters.

 

[SASpursfan]

What about stepping onto the court while play is going on? Wouldn't that at the minimum be a technical on the Spurs bench?

If you look at the bench during any game there is someone always stepping on the court. Many players come onto the cour after a big time 3 pointer or a facial dunk. Coaches do it all the time to.

 

[azdad1978]

Are the Wildcats really 0-27 in the Rose Bowl or did they lose a recent game 27 to nothing?

hey you're still alive. Better take you off the official suicide list.

 

[jbeecham]

If you look at the bench during any game there is someone always stepping on the court. Many players come onto the cour after a big time 3 pointer or a facial dunk. Coaches do it all the time to.

How many step onto the court past the 3 pt line yelling at the refs and don't get a technical during the game or after the game is reviewed. Also, how many do it while a hard foul has been commited? How many of them have to be pulled back to the bench by their teammates, who are now also in the violation of leaving the bench rule?

 

[msdundee]

Hunter says he's received about 30 e-mails from players across the league. I'm sure the rule will be dealt with, but that doesn't change anything right now OR for the rest of the playoffs and it could easily happen again. In fact, given the precedent set by the league, the send-in-a-goon strategy might get popular.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=awT3OOK0h9WQ&refer=home

 

[SASpursfan]

How many step onto the court past the 3 pt line yelling at the refs and don't get a technical during the game or after the game is reviewed. Also, how many do it while a hard foul has been commited? How many of them have to be pulled back to the bench by their teammates, who are now also in the violation of leaving the bench rule?

However, there wasnt a foul called on that play. Thats why I think this is a completely different scenario than what happened with Stoudemire and Diaw. I dont agree with it but thats the way it is spelled out.