Blame Who's to Blame: Amare & Boris

[ErikJoplin]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

 

[azsouthendzone]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

BS

 

[Ryanwb]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

You have two posts and both the posts are the same thing.... your ideas aren't that important

 

[mribnik]

Ugh, give me a break. No matter how long that rule is around players are going to break it. When the two-time MVP gets slammed into the scorers table you better believe the players are going to jump out of their seat and accidentally step onto the court, if not just to see that he's ok.

I once accidentally put my hand on a hot stove (it was an electric stove and you couldn't tell it was on, and nobody was using it), and you know what I did? I quickly pulled my hand off, because it was hot.

 

[ErikJoplin]

Re: BS

Care to elaborate?

 

[Chaplin]

Care to elaborate?

Trying to get into the middle of it is such utter BS that I'm surprised anyone with any intelligence would believe such a thing. I guess that means only one thing if you believe it...

 

[haverford]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

Morons? Really? You won't get many takers for this argument around here, or for that matter anywhere in the NBA universe. This is an unpopular decree and will resound in interesting ways around the league.

 

[454]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

Feel free to find your way to the Spurs board if that is your opinion, and let them know that Duncan and Bowen should be suspended too. I mean, if you're so hardcore for this rule, that must be eating you up inside. And they've been in the league for YEARS.

 

[ErikJoplin]

The key is that they left the bench. Were you not aware of this rule before last night? Or do you now suddenly dislike the rule because two Suns chose to ignore it?

 

[azsouthendzone]

Care to elaborate?

you are an idiot

 

[ErikJoplin]

I may be an idiot, but I didn't get myself suspended for Game 5 and I didn't put my team's whole season in jeopardy.

 

[454]

The key is that they left the bench. Were you not aware of this rule before last night? Or do you now suddenly dislike the rule because two Suns chose to ignore it?

Yeah, so did Duncan and Bowen in the 2nd quarter. Do you not want it enforced for them as well? In fact, Amare and Diaw have more of an argument, since they were headed for the scorers table.

 

[Ryanwb]

I may be an idiot, but I didn't get myself suspended for Game 5 and I didn't put my team's whole season in jeopardy.

Wow, you need to enroll in remedial smack talk 101

 

[F-Dog]

smack forum

 

[Greg Popovich]

Look--

Let me make this simple.

I am a Spurs fan.

Diehard Spurs fan.

Even I can see that when these two men stepped onto the bench it was:

a. when Nash was on the ground
b. before Bell confronted Horry

THERE WAS NO FIGHT WHEN THEIR FEET TOUCHED THE FLOOR!

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Amare should have stayed on the bench.

He is reckless...he can't control his fouling and he does stupid things. He has a lot of growing up left to do.

They can't blame anyone but themselves. It's the rule.

But Duncan should be gone as well.

 

[ErikJoplin]

Yeah, so did Duncan and Bowen in the 2nd quarter. Do you not want it enforced for them as well? In fact, Amare and Diaw have more of an argument, since they were headed for the scorers table.

454, this is a good point. The only thing I can guess is that the 2nd quarter incident wasn't really an altercation. And if it isn't an altercation, then the rule doesn't go into effect. That's my guess.

 

[Ryanwb]

Getting a thread moved here means you suck

 

[ndjmc]

Getting a thread moved here means you suck

HAHAHA!!!

 

[Covert Rain]

The rule about leaving the bench during an altercation has been in the league for years. Ask the Knicks.

Want to rant and rave and tear your hair out? I don't blame you. But make sure your anger is blamed at those two morons for leaving the bench and trying to get in the middle of it. Their emotions have put this series in jeopardy.

If they'd have kept on the bench this series would be all but over.

Are you for real? Do you realize without the cheap shot none of the events afterward even occur? Is that one fundamental point beyond your comprehension? After the fact yes they should not have left the bench. However, no Horry cheap shot, then no altercation, then no reaction from any player or no suspensions either. It's funny how the Spurs fans like to "cherry pick" their points.

Also, the rule states 2 things that are grey. First thing being "altercation" and the other being proximity or "vicinity" of the bench. If you take out a restraining order against someone it specifies the exact length so that there are no grey areas. Why do you think the language is so vague? The reason the language is vague is so that the league can make judgment calls. So where was the judgment? Where was the logic?

Stern already had the ability to make a judgment call and do what is right and he did not. There is a huge difference between guys leaving the bench to engauge in an altercation (which is who the rule was intended for) and someone who jumps up and then avoids the altercation. The wording was put in place to give the commisioner a tool to guage who should be suspended.

Nowhere in the rule does it state specific feet away from the bench. Nowhere in the rule does it define altercation. Nowhere in the rule does it state that intent should not be considered. Based on the video it also appears that they left the bench prior to the altercation. So if your going to suspend someone for leaving the bench prior to an altercation then why shouldn't that apply to Duncan? This decision was all about Stern reminding everybody that he is the dictator of the NBA. Based on the media and fan polls everybody sees it but Stern and Spurs fans.