Groin injury during Suns game to sideline Ginobili

[ambchang_]

Yes because

a) it was a live ball when they walked onto the court and should have at least been punished for that aspect of it (I know Spurs fans have difficulty understanding that only 5 players are allowed on the court against the Suns since they seem to go against it all the time - at least twice that I know of off the top of my head)

True, should have been a technical foul, the refs didn't call it, shucks!

b) It wasn't actually a fight in the rule. I forget the exact wording but it left plenty up for interpretation.

It said altercation. http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList section VII - Fines, 2c)

c) There was no actual fight. Did Amare leave the bench? Yup. Did he throw any punches? Nope.

Please read rule.

The rule left everything including what the vicinity of the bench was but they still strictly enforced it because a "rule is a rule" basically. They then followed it up in the offseason by re-writing rules to bail out 99% of the NBA refs for their gambling. You don't see any hypocracy there at all? If you don't you have your head so far up your ass that you can check your own prostate.

The rule about the referee has been enforced consistently for a decade?

There wasn't a fight in either case (you can argue one was prevented in the case of Amare but there still wasn't one). Both players went out on the court to protect a teammate. One gets suspended, one does not. See my point?

The incident happened that quite possibly affected the outcome of the series. The hypocracy shown by the league following the incident is undeniable

There was an altercation in one, but not another, see my point?
The difference in the rule between the refs and the players is also this.
The one with the referee is a contract with regards to the termination of the contract, it is, in effect, a hiring contract. While the other one is a rule of behaviour in the work place.

 

[jbeecham]

Really, not how videos stated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHyuPorlLiQ
Elson was running to the other side of the court where Jones is, and the ref was standing in the way to prevent anything from ever happening. That must be some weird way of chasing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altercation

Yes, I agree, but it didn't happen.

Haha.....Dictionary.com's definition of an altercation doesn't matter at all to David Stern. He's the judge, jury & executioner (of the Suns).

I'll give you the Elson not chasing James Jones on that video. I remembered him getting up and running down court & the ref jumping in his way, which is what happened. Apparently the ref thought there was a chance he was going after him or else he wouldn't have jumped in his way (refs don't normally do that).

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

It was a response to the poster who proudly posted a link with a list of pictures of Spurs whining.

I think that was HIS definition of whining, and if so then to him the Spurs are whiners. If that is your definition as well, then obviously the Suns are also whiners.

The problem with this "argument", ambchang, is that there is no endgame. What is the point? This forum, much like Spurstalk, is for fans to talk crap and sometimes share opinions. You won't change ours [in general] and we won't change yours. You know that you are trolling when you come here and then start calling out posters, the fans, the Suns team and coaches, etc. Even if you feel you are 100% justified in your mind, it is still trolling. Your players don't need or want your defense. As our players don't need ours. The difference is that we have a somewhat "vested" interest in the Suns and will defend them. On the Suns forums. You know that, and you are welcome to share your viewpoint, but when you come with "you guys are delusional" [paraphrase] it certainly comes off exactly as trolling - trying to get a reaction. But stick around, I would love to carry on conversations during the playoffs, if we can do that. And BTW, personally, I think that the Spurs are great (minus Bowen and Horry) and enjoy "playing" against them.

 

[jbeecham]

There was an altercation in one, but not another, see my point? The difference in the rule between the refs and the players is also this. The one with the referee is a contract with regards to the termination of the contract, it is, in effect, a hiring contract. While the other one is a rule of behaviour in the work place.

So what's the altercation? Is it when Horry checks Nash into the scorer's table? Is it when Raja runs over to Horry and Horry elbows him in the chest? Is it when Nash runs at Horry after he gets up? I'm guessing Stern decided it was an altercation when Horry elbows Raja for running towards him.

If this rule is uninterpretable like Stern claimed then the Suns could not be punished because it states that players leaving the bench after an altercation will be suspended......Amare & Diaw leave the bench on the initial foul. They are already off the bench before the altercation occurs and by the letter of the rule they didn't leave AFTER or even DURING an altercation so Stern actually changed the rule to punish the Suns.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The Nuggets were on a hot streak going into the playoffs, and there have been people picking the Nuggets to win (definitely the minority):
http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/nuggets-spurs-playoff-series-preview/
The Jazz just disposed of the Rockets and the Warriors, and yes, they were a year away.
The Cavs just beat the Pistons in 6 games, they were not even close to as bad as a 4 game sweep in the finals. They were an extremely good defensive team.

The Spurs were playing great basketball last year in the playoffs, the series against the Jazz basically showed how the motion offense could destroy another team. The Spurs even showed that they could consistently nail outside shots when the Cavs collapsed on the Spurs.

give me a break. Both Suns and Spurs and everyone else in the world knew our series was the Finals and that everything else was a formality. That Pistons team sucked as well. They won what? A whopping 53 games in the East? WITH CHRIS WEBBER STARTING?!

Good lord, it's okay to admit the competition to the finals was lacking besides the matchup against the Suns. It would have been for us two years ago when we got the Lakers/Clippers and didn't have to face you guys.

Defending that atrocious Cavs team... that's funny.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I wonder if Ambchang is the kind of guy who gloats at his message board about what he's doing on ours, as if being King of the Internet is a prize? My bet is yes.

And Insano, you were right on the money. Not only did he completely ignore what I wrote, but he then went on to discuss how impressive the Spurs were taking care of the most pathetic road to the Finals in recent NBA history, defending each one of their foes as if they weren't bantha fodder for anyone with a little talent, a little playoff experience and a pulse.

 

[Covert Rain]

No that's pretty close. Also Stoudemire whines to the media every 3 weeks.

How predictable.

 

[ambchang_]

Haha.....Dictionary.com's definition of an altercation doesn't matter at all to David Stern. He's the judge, jury & executioner (of the Suns).

I'll give you the Elson not chasing James Jones on that video. I remembered him getting up and running down court & the ref jumping in his way, which is what happened. Apparently the ref thought there was a chance he was going after him or else he wouldn't have jumped in his way (refs don't normally do that).

So you would say that that in fact was an altercation?

 

[ambchang_]

give me a break. Both Suns and Spurs and everyone else in the world knew our series was the Finals and that everything else was a formality. That Pistons team sucked as well. They won what? A whopping 53 games in the East? WITH CHRIS WEBBER STARTING?!

Good lord, it's okay to admit the competition to the finals was lacking besides the matchup against the Suns. It would have been for us two years ago when we got the Lakers/Clippers and didn't have to face you guys.

Defending that atrocious Cavs team... that's funny.

The Cavs team is not the strongest competition there is, and there is no doubt that the Suns was the main series in the whole playoffs, I am not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that the 16-4 record of the Spurs in the playoffs is not indicative how how well they were playing. THe Spurs were playing very well in the playoffs, and while they were not as good as the 2005 team, they were still at the top of the game.

The Pistons team is very good, in fact, I was shocked they lost to the Cavs, but the Cavs was an excellent defensive team,and I don't think there is anybody who would argue that.

 

[ambchang_]

I wonder if Ambchang is the kind of guy who gloats at his message board about what he's doing on ours, as if being King of the Internet is a prize? My bet is yes.

And Insano, you were right on the money. Not only did he completely ignore what I wrote, but he then went on to discuss how impressive the Spurs were taking care of the most pathetic road to the Finals in recent NBA history, defending each one of their foes as if they weren't bantha fodder for anyone with a little talent, a little playoff experience and a pulse.

Not really, I post on Spurs talk, people were surprised I wasn't banned yet because of the reputation of the board and how fiercely I have been defending the Spurs.

I am not sure what you bet, but you lost on that one.

Also, I wouldn't call the Suns of 07 were bantha fodder for anyone with a little talent, a little playoff experience and a pulse. I thought they were a mighty fine team.

 

[ambchang_]

It is nice how Cheesebeef can concede that the suns aren't perfect and how some of the things the spurs do make sense and are ok in his book.

Let me guess though, the troll king probably didn't concede a single inch back to cheesebeef.

Funny how one of the troll kings commonly played cards has always been that suns fans say the suns are perfect and the spurs are completely horrid.

I know without even reading his posts (on ignore) that he didn't give the same courtesy back to Cheesebeef and talk about the flaws of his own team.

Be careful next time you play that card troll king..

Quote me.

 

[jbeecham]

So you would say that that in fact was an altercation?

It was a hard foul that caused players to leave the bench onto the court.....I wouldn't define that as an altercation, but I wouldn't say there was an altercation in the Horry foul either. It doesn't matter what I think an altercation is because Stern is the only one that can interpret an uninterpretable rule so that meets his goal.

 

[Cheesewater]

I wonder if Ambchang is the kind of guy who gloats at his message board about what he's doing on ours, as if being King of the Internet is a prize? My bet is yes.

Actually no. I've been over to Spurstalk and he rarely posts. When he does it's either about Bruce Bowen or to post a youtube of some guy dunking turkeys.

 

[Cheesewater]

Not really, I post on Spurs talk, people were surprised I wasn't banned yet because of the reputation of the board and how fiercely I have been defending the Spurs.

I am not sure what you bet, but you lost on that one.

Also, I wouldn't call the Suns of 07 were bantha fodder for anyone with a little talent, a little playoff experience and a pulse. I thought they were a mighty fine team.

He's bluffing here. I doubt anyone knows who he is on Spurstalk.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Also, I wouldn't call the Suns of 07 were bantha fodder for anyone with a little talent, a little playoff experience and a pulse. I thought they were a mighty fine team.

good one! do you see what he did there? He twisted words in one post and turned them around on me implying that I was saying the Suns were bantha fodder (even though I explicitly stated that the NBA Finals was our series and we would have run through anyone else just the same).

yeah, you're not a troll at all.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It was a hard foul that caused players to leave the bench onto the court.....I wouldn't define that as an altercation, but I wouldn't say there was an altercation in the Horry foul either. It doesn't matter what I think an altercation is because Stern is the only one that can interpret an uninterpretable rule so that meets his goal.

I don't know how anyone can say the Horry thing wasn't an altercation. Our guy ran up in Horry's face, a punch/forearm was thrown at him and another of our guys ran up in Horry's face. I don't like agreeing with a troll, but to argue the Horry thing wasn't an altercation just doesn't hold water to me.

 

[jbeecham]

I don't know how anyone can say the Horry thing wasn't an altercation. Our guy ran up in Horry's face, a punch/forearm was thrown at him and another of our guys ran up in Horry's face. I don't like agreeing with a troll, but to argue the Horry thing wasn't an altercation just doesn't hold water to me.

Raja ran towards Horry, Horry put a forearm/elbow into Raja and they were separated and then Nash ran towards Horry and was held back. No punches were thrown. There was no fight, mostly just a bunch of heated words exchanged. It all depends on the definition of what an altercation is and I don't think we ever got an answer on that from Stern.

 

[ambchang_]

It was a hard foul that caused players to leave the bench onto the court.....I wouldn't define that as an altercation, but I wouldn't say there was an altercation in the Horry foul either. It doesn't matter what I think an altercation is because Stern is the only one that can interpret an uninterpretable rule so that meets his goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYC95MziMJk

The exchange between Bell and Horry? I wouldn't see how you don't see it as an altercation, but that's up to you.

 

[justAndy]

Stern - I hate him more than I do the Spurs.
His smugness and lack of integrity regarding the suspensions and the gamblin' refs is totally putrid.

 

[ambchang_]

Actually no. I've been over to Spurstalk and he rarely posts. When he does it's either about Bruce Bowen or to post a youtube of some guy dunking turkeys.

2000+ post is rarely? You have high standards.

And I actually usually post have anything basketball.

You probably don't know who James White is, but he caused a lot of hype on the Spurs last year, and he just won the dunking contest over at a Turkish league.

 

[Evil Ash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYC95MziMJk

The exchange between Bell and Horry? I wouldn't see how you don't see it as an altercation, but that's up to you.

Actually as jbeecham pointed out, its up to Stern. Our opinions don't matter.

I just don't like the hypocracy of the whole thing.

 

[ambchang_]

good one! do you see what he did there? He twisted words in one post and turned them around on me implying that I was saying the Suns were bantha fodder (even though I explicitly stated that the NBA Finals was our series and we would have run through anyone else just the same).

yeah, you're not a troll at all.

What did I twist? Perhaps you can expand?

 

[cobbler]

Raja ran towards Horry, Horry put a forearm into Raja and they were separated and then Nash ran towards Horry and was held back. No punches were thrown. There was no fight, mostly just a bunch of heated words exchanged. It all depends on the definition of what an altercation is and I don't think we ever got an answer on that from Stern.

al·ter·ca·tion

You must be registered for see images

Audio Help/ˌɔl

You must be registered for see images

tərˈkeɪ

You must be registered for see images

ʃən/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-ter-key-shuh

You must be registered for see images

n]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy.


I think when you have any two players involved in a hard foul (flagrant or not) and they jump up to get in each others face, where teamates from either or both sides initial reaction is to charge to the defense of the other..... that would be considered an altercation. Punches do not have to be thrown. I remember the big one with Mchale and Rambis in the finals where Mchale closlined Rambis, they got nose to nose, refs and players pulling each away. No punches were thrown, but it was most CERTAINLY an altercation.

 

[ambchang_]

Actually as jbeecham pointed out, its up to Stern. Our opinions don't matter.

I just don't like the hypocracy of the whole thing.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. I still don't agree with the Bowen suspension earlier on in the year, but hey, no point crying over it.

 

[TucsonDevil]

What a shame - Ambchang ruins another good thread. Even though I have him on 'ignore' too many people quote him and respond to his junk. I beg everyone - please just place him on ignore.