I finally had a chance to listen to Stern's interview with Dan Patrick. I don't post very much, but I've been a fan for over 30 years, and while my love for this game is reaching its nadir, I've come to some conclusions about the core problem with Stern and this bench rule.
In the big picture, he and the owners want to curb the violence on the floor, which is something we all can agree is a good thing. We can also agree that keeping the players on the bench is certainly a good way to keep fights from escalating. However, there are two sides of the equation: the action ... pushing, cheap shots, fighting, overly physical play, etc, on the court; and the reaction ... the escalation, especially from players on the bench and the fans. In what defies all logic and reason, the rule Stern seems hell bent focusing his energy on is, inherently, a reactionary rule. Very simply, no problem, in any form in life, is solved by focusing on the reaction. It's solved by tackling the core, or action of the problem. In this case, if he's serious about curbing violence, his hard line, black and white, no interpretation stance should be in dealing with what is initiating the violence, and that is the unsportsmanlike, overly physical, dirty play of the players ON the court. You take care of that, and you don't need to worry about the reactions of the players of the bench.
If Stern had taken that hard line approach toward the dirty, physical, and unsportsmanlike action on the court, his mug wouldn't have surfaced after game 4, it would have surfaced after game 3. Let’s say he sees Bruce Bowen's kick to the groin of Nash, a game after his questionable kick to Amare. In taking a hard-line, black and white stance, he announces that Bowen is suspended for the rest of the playoffs. It's overly harsh, it's unfair, but it's correct, and needed to protect the players on the court. Fast forward to game four. I'll bet you the title to my house that Horry doesn't cheap shot Nash. You think he wants to miss the rest of the playoffs? Of course not. And guess what, David? Now you don't have to concern yourself with the reactions of Amare or Diaw on the bench.
Now let’s look at the natural consequences of his actual ruling. I'll also bet you the title to my house that Amare and Boris don't move the next time there's an altercation. But that's the problem: their suspensions won’t do anything to thwart the next on court altercation. Whether they sit down or move 20 feet past the bench, it will still be a RESPONSE to a Horry like cheap shot on the floor. That is what you’re trying to stop, isn't it David? In fact, the odds are much greater that some scrub will cheap shot the opposing teams star in hopes of baiting the other team’s bench. By focusing on the reactions of players, and having a soft, grey area approach to the violence initiated on the court, he's done nothing to curb the problem. That's why this rule did nothing to stop the worst fight in NBA history, Detroit and Indiana. That’s why suspending a Patrick Ewing for passively standing outside the bench during a fight didn't do a thing to keep a Danny Fortson from ending Zarko's career. Etc etc ...
The NBA says they want a cleaner game. They want to stop fighting. They want to protect the player. They want better sportsmanship. Fine. Then stop focusing on the peripheral, and go to the core of the problem. Stop rewarding physical play in the playoffs. Give harsher, multi game suspensions for flagrant fouls. Ban players for a year for starting a fight on the court. Etc etc ... Start being black and white with those initiating the violence, and stop moronically thinking you can solve the problem by laying down the law on players reacting to it. Until then, everything that comes out of Sterns mouth will smell of BS.
In the big picture, he and the owners want to curb the violence on the floor, which is something we all can agree is a good thing. We can also agree that keeping the players on the bench is certainly a good way to keep fights from escalating. However, there are two sides of the equation: the action ... pushing, cheap shots, fighting, overly physical play, etc, on the court; and the reaction ... the escalation, especially from players on the bench and the fans. In what defies all logic and reason, the rule Stern seems hell bent focusing his energy on is, inherently, a reactionary rule. Very simply, no problem, in any form in life, is solved by focusing on the reaction. It's solved by tackling the core, or action of the problem. In this case, if he's serious about curbing violence, his hard line, black and white, no interpretation stance should be in dealing with what is initiating the violence, and that is the unsportsmanlike, overly physical, dirty play of the players ON the court. You take care of that, and you don't need to worry about the reactions of the players of the bench.
If Stern had taken that hard line approach toward the dirty, physical, and unsportsmanlike action on the court, his mug wouldn't have surfaced after game 4, it would have surfaced after game 3. Let’s say he sees Bruce Bowen's kick to the groin of Nash, a game after his questionable kick to Amare. In taking a hard-line, black and white stance, he announces that Bowen is suspended for the rest of the playoffs. It's overly harsh, it's unfair, but it's correct, and needed to protect the players on the court. Fast forward to game four. I'll bet you the title to my house that Horry doesn't cheap shot Nash. You think he wants to miss the rest of the playoffs? Of course not. And guess what, David? Now you don't have to concern yourself with the reactions of Amare or Diaw on the bench.
Now let’s look at the natural consequences of his actual ruling. I'll also bet you the title to my house that Amare and Boris don't move the next time there's an altercation. But that's the problem: their suspensions won’t do anything to thwart the next on court altercation. Whether they sit down or move 20 feet past the bench, it will still be a RESPONSE to a Horry like cheap shot on the floor. That is what you’re trying to stop, isn't it David? In fact, the odds are much greater that some scrub will cheap shot the opposing teams star in hopes of baiting the other team’s bench. By focusing on the reactions of players, and having a soft, grey area approach to the violence initiated on the court, he's done nothing to curb the problem. That's why this rule did nothing to stop the worst fight in NBA history, Detroit and Indiana. That’s why suspending a Patrick Ewing for passively standing outside the bench during a fight didn't do a thing to keep a Danny Fortson from ending Zarko's career. Etc etc ...
The NBA says they want a cleaner game. They want to stop fighting. They want to protect the player. They want better sportsmanship. Fine. Then stop focusing on the peripheral, and go to the core of the problem. Stop rewarding physical play in the playoffs. Give harsher, multi game suspensions for flagrant fouls. Ban players for a year for starting a fight on the court. Etc etc ... Start being black and white with those initiating the violence, and stop moronically thinking you can solve the problem by laying down the law on players reacting to it. Until then, everything that comes out of Sterns mouth will smell of BS.
