luvstobowl
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Posts
- 141
- Reaction score
- 0
thats great news!!! Now all we need is to host it for baseball
Is Stern going to attend?
He should get a special treatment by the fans.If he does, hell get shot.
Is Stern going to attend?
That is pretty cool. It's been a while.
thats great news!!! Now all we need is to host it for baseball
i wish i could be there
"All that I can say is ... we have a rule that has been consistently enforced and my determination at that time was not to make a special exception for the Suns,'' Stern said. "It's something that I can't apologize for, but I can understand how people would feel that the enforcement of the rule had consequences. The people in New York City felt that it cost the Knicks the championship the year that Patrick Ewing and others came off the bench. I gave them the same answer. The rule is the rule. It's actually articulated each year. It's re-enforced by the individual teams to their players. And somehow, there was a breakdown of some kind that (led) to the players running out without being restrained. I'm sorry it happened. ... But part of playing in the NBA is knowing what the rules are."
Stern said he brought up the rule to the league's competition committee and realized there was no reason to change the rule.
"The idea that we're supposed to determine the intent of somebody is a problem, one that I lived through as assistant to (former commissioner) Larry O'Brien when Rudy Tomjanovich almost got killed coming off the bench as a peacemaker, (something) that deeply affected both his life and Kermit Washington's,'' he said. "If we had that rule and enforced it, that never would have happened. And that's a serious issue with large men coming off the bench.
"I put the issue squarely to our competition committee and the players who played at the meeting said that I had lost my mind for even raising the issue. "They said, 'When you're out there, you just don't know. It's a scary place to be and when people come at you, you're liable to do almost anything.' ... That was what Hall of Famers were telling me. I was trying to be fair, as there was some suggestion that the rule needed to be modified. I said, 'Guys, talk to me.' And they said, 'Shut up and go on to the next subject.' "
zing!Can the Suns get a banner for this?
The rafters are looking a little bare.
Should give the Phoenix economy quite the boost.
They should hold on in Nebraska so it can be convenient for me to go.
The reporters asked him about the suspensions
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/1108sternallstar.html
I don't like Stern any more than most on this board, but at the risk of defending him, I don't think you can compare the suspensions of Amare & Boris to the referee gambling issue.See the thing is, thats a fine and dandy response, but if it isnt followed up with a question about not punishing any of the refs for violating their strictly enforced rule its useless.
I don't like Stern any more than most on this board, but at the risk of defending him, I don't think you can compare the suspensions of Amare & Boris to the referee gambling issue.
I don't like Stern any more than most on this board, but at the risk of defending him, I don't think you can compare the suspensions of Amare & Boris to the referee gambling issue.
To me, it's all about how the rule is written. The rule about not coming off the bench during an altercation specifically states within the rule that a one game suspension shall be the consequence of a violation, whereas the league gambling policy for the referees left the form of punishment at the discretion of the league. The league chose to fine the referees in lieu of suspending them.
The refs were punished consistent with the options available to the league, and Stoudemire & Diaw were punished consistent with the lack of options available to the league because of the way that particular rule is written.
Except for the fact that altercation is a subjective term, and vicinity of the bench is a debatable concept as well. He has plenty of loopholes, and no scenario on that day is worse than referees gambling in any form when they have signed a contract not to.
The way it was enforced was not in line with the spirit of the law.
I was under the impression that none of the refs were punished in any form other than donaghy.
I was also under the impression that stern defended the suspensions by saying he had no control over the rules in place, and defended the lack of punishment of the refs by saying the rule was too strict in the first place.
Its the hypocrisy that you have to compare, regardless of the apples/oranges debate.