Stu Jackson's a LIAR (Must Read)

[jpdavis82]

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1028/1452258.html

"In this circumstance, our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation.''

THIS IS BS, SEND THIS QUOTE TO THE LEAGUE OFFICE

 

[sharkman]

"Our rule regarding an automatic suspension for players leaving the bench was not intended to apply in a highly unusual situation like this one"
"This is not a new precedent at all,'' Jackson said in a conference call with reporters. "In the end we felt this case was very unusual, a special case.''


I'm convinced that the Spurs have pictures of Stern with a goat. They got lucky not once (with Robinson)...but twice (with Duncan). I wouldn't be surprised if SA winds up winning this year's lottery for Oden (despite not having any ping pong balls)...Stern would simply say that although it isn't fair...it is correct.

 

[D-Dogg]

Leave the rest in:

"Our rule regarding an automatic suspension for players leaving the bench was not intended to apply in a highly unusual situation like this one, where an altercation occurs in an access tunnel or hallway,''

A very odd event...Rick went and laid in wait for Christie...it wasn't on the court but back in the tunnels.

 

[jbeecham]

The point on this is clearly how the league decides to interpret a rule that is not supposed to be open to interpretation. If the players left the bench because of an altercation (no matter where it is) then the rule states they will be suspended.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Leave the rest in:



A very odd event...Rick went and laid in wait for Christie...it wasn't on the court but back in the tunnels.

But did they ever touch the court to get to the tunnels?

 

[ActingWild]

Leave the rest in:



A very odd event...Rick went and laid in wait for Christie...it wasn't on the court but back in the tunnels.

But here's the whole flaw in their logic. No where in the "red letter rule" does it say "unless the conflict is in a tunnel and the players are acting as peace keepers." Stern and Jackson used their judgement and used the "tunnel" exception as their excuse.

There's no way of arguing around that fact. By making any exception in the past they've already proved that they DO have the power to use discretion. They've both decided that they were going to punish the Suns and use the rule as their way out of any responsibility.

 

[jbeecham]

But did they ever touch the court to get to the tunnels?

Apparently it doesn't matter if they went 20+ feet.

 

[D-Dogg]

But here's the whole flaw in their logic. No where in the "red letter rule" does it say "unless the conflict is in a tunnel and the players are acting as peace keepers." Stern and Jackson used their judgement and used the "tunnel" exception as their excuse.

There's no way of arguing around that fact. By making any exception in the past they've already proved that they DO have the power to use discretion. They've both decided that they were going to punish the Suns and use the rule as their way out of any responsibility.

This is true, but the game 4 incident wasn't "highly unusual."

The tunnel fight was unusual, while the game 4 was your run of the mill scuffle where people always stay on the bench or bench area.

So even IF they were going to take the tunnel fight as a precedent and say it doesn't apply in a highly unusual act, it doesn't help Amare's case any. There wasn't anything "unusual" in that incident as there was when Fox went and camped out in the tunnel waiting for Christie to come out, then jumped him. That's some odd stuff...nor when the Palace erupted and fans were on the court getting punched...that's highly unusual.

A hard foul followed by some pattycake pushing and shoving is pretty normal, and the rule, as dumb as it is written, is meant to keep that pretty normal thing from becoming "highly unusual" as in a bench clearing brawl. Amare knows the rule, all the coaches know the rule. The rest of the bench knows the rule. Amare did what people do and wasn't a robot like Stern wants, but he knows the rule and what happens if broken.

So they have a precedent of not being strict in "highly unusual" cases, but that still doesn't help your cause.

It's a crappy, stupid, poorly designed rule applied consistently. That should NOT be the issue, at all, from anyone. The issue should be why everything else is WILDLY inconsistent.

 

[jbeecham]

I agree with what you're saying Donald, but it doesn't make sense to not enforce the rule for the tunnel fight. There are security guards there to stop any altercations, the players should not be leaving the bench to run to a fight anywhere by the definition of the rule.....peacekeeping or not.

For the league to choose how to interpret the rule clearly defies the rule itself since it is a black and white rule.

 

[D-Dogg]

I agree with what you're saying Donald, but it doesn't make sense to not enforce the rule for the tunnel fight. There are security guards there to stop any altercations, the players should not be leaving the bench to run to a fight anywhere by the definition of the rule.....peacekeeping or not.

For the league to choose how to interpret the rule clearly defies the rule itself since it is a black and white rule.

I agree with that as well, when it happened I was surprised.

What I want to see is two members of the same team fighting and a bench player coming on the court to break them apart...how would they handle that?

The rule just isn't very well thought out.

 

[ActingWild]

This is true, but the game 4 incident wasn't "highly unusual."

The tunnel fight was unusual, while the game 4 was your run of the mill scuffle where people always stay on the bench or bench area.

So even IF they were going to take the tunnel fight as a precedent and say it doesn't apply in a highly unusual act, it doesn't help Amare's case any. There wasn't anything "unusual" in that incident as there was when Fox went and camped out in the tunnel waiting for Christie to come out, then jumped him. That's some odd stuff...nor when the Palace erupted and fans were on the court getting punched...that's highly unusual.

A hard foul followed by some pattycake pushing and shoving is pretty normal, and the rule, as dumb as it is written, is meant to keep that pretty normal thing from becoming "highly unusual" as in a bench clearing brawl. Amare knows the rule, all the coaches know the rule. The rest of the bench knows the rule. Amare did what people do and wasn't a robot like Stern wants, but he knows the rule and what happens if broken.

So they have a precedent of not being strict in "highly unusual" cases, but that still doesn't help your cause.

It's a crappy, stupid, poorly designed rule applied consistently. That should NOT be the issue, at all, from anyone. The issue should be why everything else is WILDLY inconsistent.

My argument isn't that in order for Stern or Stu to use their discretion it must be a highly unusual circumstance. It's that their logic is "a rule is a rule."

According to the interpretation they're ramming down our throats, a precedent could never be made as an exception to the rule as it is a "red letter" rule.

They're saying two opposing things here:

"The rule states 'blah blah blah' but in this situation we're not enforcing it."

"The rule states 'blah blah blah' no exceptions."

Yet, the fact that there IS a precedent for not enforcing it proves that they do in fact have the power and discretion to bend the rule, and have done so in the past.

They're choosing not to and lying about it.