Newfan101, lets talk about the suspensions

[spurs81]

Newfan101, I've enjoyed your postings on the suspensions and wanted to actually give them some thought before responding so I waited a week. You make a passionate case, but one I believe is fundamentally flawed. I'm starting a new thread b/c I'm quoting you in various threads you've posted in. (For all others not wanting to partake in the conversation I know the topic has been beaten to death. Don't read if you're not interested).

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.

I think this is where you begin down the road to an ultimately flawed conclusion.

Cheap or hard fouls, overly physical play, unsportsmanlike play, & even dirty play does NOT necessarily lead to violence. This is evidenced by the fact that Spurs have been playing like this since 1999 and never once did it lead to violence or an altercation of any sort that required suspensions. The only other playoff incident of note I can remember in recent history involving the Spurs was Terry's crotch shot to Finely last year (completely unprovoked).

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.

You're jumbling lots of issues here.

Stern's faces multiple problems here:

1. Basketball is a contact sport

2. Locking down on physical play too much opens the league back up to the "no defense" criticisms that its faced in the past.

3. How do you maintain competitive fires while preventing frustrations from spilling over into altercations?

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.

You're getting into intent and asking Stern to discern intent on those plays. The second you start doing that you're looking at possibly suspending Nash for headbutting Parker. There is a big difference between Stern interpreting a hard and fast rule and discerning intent (as you are suggesting he should).

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.

You are blaming Horry for what Boris and Amare did. I think this is ultimately the fatal flaw to your arguement. More on this later.

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.

Reading the transcript from the Patrick interview, Stern makes it very clear that the intent of the rule isn't to prevent future altercations, but to prevent bench players from involving themselves in on court problems. You're acting as if Stern's intent was to prevent altercations in the future when Stern clearly said the intent of the rule is to prevent scenarios like the Rudy Tomjonavich scenario (does anybody need a history lesson?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Washington ). Rudy T's life was literally changed forever when he went out onto the court as peacemaker and got popped. The intent of the rule is not to prevent altercations but to prevent bench players from becoming involved in altercations. Its a distinction that is fundamentally important to this conversation.

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.

In that context the rule is pretty meaningless. But when viewed in the context of what happened to Rudy T the rule has some weight to it.

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.

You are once again obfuscating the issues here. Amare and Boris weren't suspended to prevent fighting. They were suspended to prevent bench players from becoming involved in a fight that is already happening.

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.

You're using some pretty passionate words there. Two points here:

1. I think we can agree that the NBA can live with some level of physicality DURING THE COURSE OF THE GAME.

2. Physicality outside of the normal course/scope of the game is something I would call violence.

It was Horry's altercation that HE started that caused Amare and Diaw coming off the bench to suddenly become an offense.

Horry did not start the altercation. Plenty of cheap, hard fouls occur in the NBA that DO NOT result in pushing, shoving or any other form of an altercation.

Exhibit A is the foul on Elson. It was a hard foul on Elson (or should I say violent?). This didn't lead to an altercation did it? There are countless hard fouls that occur through the course of the playoffs that don't result in anything like this.

To me it sounds as if you honestly believe that the natural unfolding of events is as follows:

A. Hard, cheap foul
B. On court players get in each other's faces over said foul
C. Bench players become engaged in even in some form or fashion.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Even A routinely happens without leading to B or C. This idea that Amare and Diaw were victims of some sick, twisted turn of events beyond their control is patently false. It simply couldn't have been any further from the truth.

Don’t EVER forget this: Horry's foul led to the REACTION of Amare and Diaw leaving the bench.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, hard fouls routinely occur that DO NOT LEAD TO THOSE REACTIONS. Furthermore, there were at least 7 players on the Suns bench at the time of the incident but only 2 left the bench. If Amare and Diaw's reactions were truly natural and beyond their control it stands to reason that the other 5 players on the bench would have reacted in the same way. That 5 out of 7 guys didn't find it necessary to run up the sideline while 2 out of 7 proves that it wasn't Horry that led AMare and Diaw to run up the sideline; it was Amare and Diaw's decision to take that course of action, a decision that 5 other Suns disagreed with.

If Horry had reached over to apologize to Nash for the foul, and diffused the situation, it wouldn't have been an altercation, and Amare and Diaw wouldn't have been suspended.

Disagree completely. There was NO SITUATION TO BE DIFFUSED. Watch the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYC95MziMJk

1. Horry fouls Nash
2. Horry turns around immediately to walk away

and

3. Bell comes running up to Horry (rather than checking on his teammate)
3A. Suns Bench players come into the picture
3B. Nash runs after Horry

Exactly what "situation" is there to be diffused? Nash wasn't in any danger at any time after the contact. Horry wasn't going after Nash, was he? Was it a hard, cheap foul? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean there is a situation, does it? I again refer you to the Elson foul earlier in the game. You act as if Horry committed a hard foul and then created an altercation. Horry fouled and walked away. It was Bell that decided to get in Horry's mug. It was Amare and Diaw that decided to run up the sidelines for no good reason.

It's so absurd it's almost twilight zone: the more unsportsmanlike he acted, the more he shifted the blame and burden of proof away from him and on to Amare and Diaw ... who were doing NOTHING unsportsmanlike.

Again, the rule is not about Sportsmanlike behavior. Its about preventing players on the bench from becoming involved in on court altercations.

It is the most unbelievable miscarriage of justice I've ever seen in sports.

Umm, black people not being allowed to compete in the Major Leagues and the USSR/USA Olympic basketball game immediately come to mind as bigger miscarriages of justice, but that's just me. I'm sure in Arizona Amare and Diaw getting punished for breaking the rules is worse.

Most despicable are Stern and Jackson for not seeing the forest through the trees, rewarding unsportsmanlike play, and hard lining the wrong players for a natural, human, completely non-violent response to a teammate being thrown to the floor.

The reaction was NOT natural as evidenced by the fact that between the two teams only 2 out of 14 bench players found it necessary to run up the sidelines. If Amare and Diaw's reaction was "natural" then a lot more of those 14 players would have had the same reaction. If anything, the fact that only 2 out of 14 guys reacted in that way proves how unnatural the reaction was.

I don't necessarily buy that their reaction was non-violent either. Ask yourself this pivotal question: Let's say Horry goes after Nash and starts kicking Nash while he is on the ground, do you think that Amare and Diaw stop in their tracks or do you think Amare and Diaw get involved in the scrum?

 

[spurs81]

Utlimately, here's my point of view:

Horry's foul in and of itself does not lead to the suspensions. There were two last clear chances to avoid the suspensions:

1. Bell doesn't go after Horry.

2. Amare and Diaw don't leave the immidiate vincinity of the bench.


I understand that Horry will be public enemy #1 in Arizona for years to come, but his actions by themselves did not lead to the suspensions nor were they the cause of the suspensions (again, 5 other Suns weren't suspended).

Also, the natural, human, and sportsmanlike thing to do is make sure that you're fallen comrade is okay, not to get in the face of the percieved perpetrator.

Frankly, I think the one who should get the blame is Bell. He's really the one that escalated this from just a flagarant 2 foul into an altercation, which ultimately led to the suspensions.

 

[mjb21aztd]

yada yada typical troll like thinking that the spurs did nothing wrong what bs

 

[jenna2891]

Frankly, I think the one who should get the blame is Bell. He's really the one that escalated this from just a flagarant 2 foul into an altercation, which ultimately led to the suspensions.

so, you're saying that the "interaction" between bell and horry was the actual altercation, not the horry foul?

 

[Cheesebeef]

honestly, get lost man. that crap is yesterday's news. I realize there's nothing interesting in the NBA to talk about now, including your team, but we're all trying to move on here. Why don't you try to do something certain members of your team were unable to do, namely, stop acting like a douchebag and leave us alone.

 

[sharkman]

honestly, get lost man. that crap is yesterday's news. I realize there's nothing interesting in the NBA to talk about now, including your team, but we're all trying to move on here. Why don't you try to do something certain members of your team were unable to do, namely, stop acting like a douchebag and leave us alone.

 

[CaptainInsano]

Wow, another ******SPURS******** fan trying to validate his teams and the nba's pathetic actions. Who would have thought!

A spurs fan thinks everything was just and right? Hold the horses! Talk about a way to sway my opinion!

I wonder then, why fans of other teams, journalists, the media, blogs, and basically the entire nation except san antiono believes it was a screw over on the part of the nba if obviously spurs fans think it was justifiable and fair...

Oh wait, you are just another biased douchebag! Take a hike.

 

[Mainstreet]

Wow, another ******SPURS******** fan trying to validate his teams and the nba's pathetic actions. Who would have thought!

Think about it. They know the Suns got screwed in game 4 by the suspensions in the incident created by Horry. So now they are still hanging around the Suns board trying to justify it in their twisted little minds. Well, it won't work because they they know this series deserves an asterisk because there should have been a game 7 to determine the winner. Then there would not have been any doubt.

 

[btimsah]

Reading the transcript from the Patrick interview, Stern makes it very clear that the intent of the rule isn't to prevent future altercations, but to prevent bench players from involving themselves in on court problems. You're acting as if Stern's intent was to prevent altercations in the future when Stern clearly said the intent of the rule is to prevent scenarios like the Rudy Tomjonavich scenario (does anybody need a history lesson?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Washington ). Rudy T's life was literally changed forever when he went out onto the court as peacemaker and got popped. The intent of the rule is not to prevent altercations but to prevent bench players from becoming involved in altercations. Its a distinction that is fundamentally important to this conversation.

The bench players were not involved in an altercation. So, weather they take a step off that bench makes little difference?

 

[D-Dogg]

Is douchebag the vocab word of the day or something?

 

[dodie53]

*********

 

[Cheesebeef]

Is douchebag the vocab word of the day or something?

it's definitely my insult of choice this month.

 

[dodie53]

how about "dirty" and/or "cheap"?

 

[btimsah]

I was not going to get into this again, but quite frankly seeing a self-rightious pompous arrogant ass like this - I had no choice. Any team in the Suns situation (SHOULD) have every right to stand up for their teamate. Should we rely on old, 90 year old refs to save (rather small) Steve Nash if a real fight breaks out? The rule is ********, compounded by the NBA's lack of attention too cheap and/or hard fouls during the game. Result - a fight can break out and you have to just stand there. That's the problem. But hey you wanna get into the b.s. details of the situation? Okay.. lets do that.

Cheap or hard fouls, overly physical play, unsportsmanlike play, & even dirty play does NOT necessarily lead to violence. This is evidenced by the fact that Spurs have been playing like this since 1999 and never once did it lead to violence or an altercation of any sort that required suspensions. The only other playoff incident of note I can remember in recent history involving the Spurs was Terry's crotch shot to Finely last year (completely unprovoked).

In this series, the Spurs were physically abusing the Suns. Cheap shots, hard shots - whatever you want to call them. Then Horry does what he does. Of course Amare gets up like he does. He's sick of your Spur ********.

Stern's faces multiple problems here:

1. Basketball is a contact sport

2. Locking down on physical play too much opens the league back up to the "no defense" criticisms that its faced in the past.

3. How do you maintain competitive fires while preventing frustrations from spilling over into altercations?

Basketball is not really supposed to require pads, and the "no defensive" teams you speak of just did not fouls as much as the Spurs do.

You're getting into intent and asking Stern to discern intent on those plays. The second you start doing that you're looking at possibly suspending Nash for headbutting Parker. There is a big difference between Stern interpreting a hard and fast rule and discerning intent (as you are suggesting he should).

Stern uses judgement to determin Duncan's intent, when in the 2nd quarter he comes off the bench to get involved in a skirmish between James Jones and some other Spur. Bowen pushes him back to the bench. Why would Bowen push him back to the bench, and why did Duncan GET UP in the first place? The same reason Amare and Diaw did.

You are blaming Horry for what Boris and Amare did. I think this is ultimately the fatal flaw to your arguement. More on this later.

You know what you can do with your fatal flaws. Nothing more needed on this later.

Reading the transcript from the Patrick interview, Stern makes it very clear that the intent of the rule isn't to prevent future altercations, but to prevent bench players from involving themselves in on court problems. You're acting as if Stern's intent was to prevent altercations in the future when Stern clearly said the intent of the rule is to prevent scenarios like the Rudy Tomjonavich scenario (does anybody need a history lesson?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Washington ). Rudy T's life was literally changed forever when he went out onto the court as peacemaker and got popped. The intent of the rule is not to prevent altercations but to prevent bench players from becoming involved in altercations. Its a distinction that is fundamentally important to this conversation.

Again, Duncan walking out onto the court with no other purpose but to involve himself in a potential fight is ignored by Stern.

You are once again obfuscating the issues here. Amare and Boris weren't suspended to prevent fighting. They were suspended to prevent bench players from becoming involved in a fight that is already happening.

Unless your Tim Duncan and the fight never materializes, then I guess your just damn lucky. Which illustrates how full of **** this rule is, and it's implications. What pisses me off about this, is how the Spurs fans like yourself are unwilling to admit this is a poopy rule because it helps you beat the Suns. A team that you consider inferrior yet were scared to death was going to beat you. Now your somehow in love with this rule - Give me a physical break! If this had happened to the Spurs you'd be saying the same things were saying.

You're using some pretty passionate words there. Two points here:

1. I think we can agree that the NBA can live with some level of physicality DURING THE COURSE OF THE GAME.

2. Physicality outside of the normal course/scope of the game is something I would call violence.

No, remember a rule is a rule. Red letter rule. A foul is a foul remember? You can't ask a ref to determine a players intent and let things go.

Horry did not start the altercation. Plenty of cheap, hard fouls occur in the NBA that DO NOT result in pushing, shoving or any other form of an altercation.

Exhibit A is the foul on Elson. It was a hard foul on Elson (or should I say violent?). This didn't lead to an altercation did it? There are countless hard fouls that occur through the course of the playoffs that don't result in anything like this.

What? Who started the altercation then? Nash because we had the balls to come back and beat the Spurs on their home court?

To me it sounds as if you honestly believe that the natural unfolding of events is as follows:

A. Hard, cheap foul
B. On court players get in each other's faces over said foul
C. Bench players become engaged in even in some form or fashion.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Even A routinely happens without leading to B or C. This idea that Amare and Diaw were victims of some sick, twisted turn of events beyond their control is patently false. It simply couldn't have been any further from the truth.

Amare and Diaw, standing up to come to the aid of their teamate because of a cheap foul by thunder-theighs Horry is nothing to punish. You are merely trying to use the rule to scapegoat the cheap shot foul, the win in the series and your team's overrall dirty play. Did I forget boring play?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, hard fouls routinely occur that DO NOT LEAD TO THOSE REACTIONS. Furthermore, there were at least 7 players on the Suns bench at the time of the incident but only 2 left the bench. If Amare and Diaw's reactions were truly natural and beyond their control it stands to reason that the other 5 players on the bench would have reacted in the same way. That 5 out of 7 guys didn't find it necessary to run up the sideline while 2 out of 7 proves that it wasn't Horry that led AMare and Diaw to run up the sideline; it was Amare and Diaw's decision to take that course of action, a decision that 5 other Suns disagreed with.

It's not a natural reaction to stand up for your MVP point guard? LOL, I guess if your a Spurs fan you just get used to those kinds of plays?

Disagree completely. There was NO SITUATION TO BE DIFFUSED. Watch the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYC95MziMJk

1. Horry fouls Nash
2. Horry turns around immediately to walk away

and

3. Bell comes running up to Horry (rather than checking on his teammate)
3A. Suns Bench players come into the picture
3B. Nash runs after Horry

Exactly what "situation" is there to be diffused? Nash wasn't in any danger at any time after the contact. Horry wasn't going after Nash, was he? Was it a hard, cheap foul? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean there is a situation, does it? I again refer you to the Elson foul earlier in the game. You act as if Horry committed a hard foul and then created an altercation. Horry fouled and walked away. It was Bell that decided to get in Horry's mug. It was Amare and Diaw that decided to run up the sidelines for no good reason.

Huh? If there was no situation, then what reason is there to suspend anyone? Again, according to Stern an altercation has to occurr.

I don't necessarily buy that their reaction was non-violent either. Ask yourself this pivotal question: Let's say Horry goes after Nash and starts kicking Nash while he is on the ground, do you think that Amare and Diaw stop in their tracks or do you think Amare and Diaw get involved in the scrum?

Let's say James Jones goes after Elson - Do you think Duncan stops in his tracks and doesnt get involved in the scrum?

 

[Lefty]

Enjoy your teams new name, the Asterick Spurs and here is their new logo

*

 

[newfan101]

Newfan101, Don't read if you're not interested.

I didn't

 

[KloD]

I didn't

 

[jag7211]

wow, so even if you come into this forum with basketball takes you still get called a troll????

Serious question:

If someone disagrees with anything "suns" are they automatically a troll?

 

[dodie53]

troll alert!
=)

 

[CardNots]

I heard a simple solution to this issue.

Fine the players leaving the bench area.

Suspend players based on their activity once they have left the bench.

 

[Chaplin]

I heard a simple solution to this issue.

Fine the players leaving the bench area.

Suspend players based on their activity once they have left the bench.

I think that would be a good setup, especially in the playoffs when the league is allowing such hard, physical play. When it comes to the "rules", the league makes a point of saying that the playoffs and the regular season are the same--but when it's about the way games are played and called in the playoffs, the league has no problem whatsoever explaining how different it is from the regular season.

Which rules are unbreakable? (Getting up off the bench)

And which are? (Hand checking)

If the NBA wants to follow the letter of the law, why don't they?

 

[dodie53]

I heard a simple solution to this issue.

Fine the players leaving the bench area.

Suspend players based on their activity once they have left the bench.

what do you think would be the minimum fine for players leaving the bench?
$30,000?
higher?
lower?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think that would be a good setup, especially in the playoffs when the league is allowing such hard, physical play. When it comes to the "rules", the league makes a point of saying that the playoffs and the regular season are the same--but when it's about the way games are played and called in the playoffs, the league has no problem whatsoever explaining how different it is from the regular season.

Which rules are unbreakable? (Getting up off the bench)

And which are? (Hand checking)

If the NBA wants to follow the letter of the law, why don't they?

i have never agreed with you more chap. and you know that's rare.

consistency is all that i have ever asked. the game is called inconsistently from the regular season to the playoffs, but the rules are not supposed to technically change. and it benefits the dirty cheap physical teams. also known as the less talented teams. it was teams like the old knicks teams, which knew they weren't as talented as the bulls, that resorted to thuggery. for some reason it's stuck as being the norm for the playoffs.

one of the comments prompted time and again by spurs fans is that it was a "physical" and "chippy" series. i laugh at that. all the physicality and chippiness was on the part of the spurs. were there any (ANY???) flagrants on the suns? were there any questionable calls on the suns? they are a clean and vanilla team (much to my chagrin, i beleive you fight fire with fire). there were no kneeing of nuts, no kicking of feet, no handchecking all over the floor (including in the backcourt for god's sake), no flagrantly bodychecking of opposing players into scorers tables, none of that on the part of the suns. one-sided physicality. the type of thing that is supposed to be eliminated from the "new nba" but it's allowed in the playoffs. ridiculous.

and don't get me started on the duncan/bowen wanderings onto the court following the jones/elson thing (and did that spurs fan really call that a hard foul??? jones just happened to be under him as he swung from the basket - you can see on jones face he's shocked that elson ends up on top of him) . . . stern wants to say there's no interpretation involved with the rule for boris and amare and then turn around and interpret the word "altercation" that exists in the rule for duncan? IN-CON-SIS-TEN-CY. stern is basically saying in one example the rule is strict liability (lawyer speak - he should get it) and in the other the law is open to interpretation (which is the antithesis of the concept of strict liability). his two decisions would be torn apart in a court of law.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

wow, so even if you come into this forum with basketball takes you still get called a troll????

Serious question:

If someone disagrees with anything "suns" are they automatically a troll?

i actually agree with you too. i don't think the dude is a troll. and i didn't really think his response was arrogant. wrong, but not arrogant.

that said, why do you spurs fans need our approval. you eeked out your game 5 win in phx against an undermanned team and took the series. you still need the mental masturbation that comes with pissing off a vanguished foe?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

what do you think would be the minimum fine for players leaving the bench?
$30,000?
higher?
lower?

i think it should be a ridiculous amount, like $100,000. i guarantee you no one would move from the bench. the problem is that such a fine would NEVER be approved by the players union.