Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blindzebra
Ridiculous.
The potential for something happening was exactly the same in both cases.
You had contact, that was hard in both cases...the difference was in Horry's case it was a deliberate act...you had players not directly involved in the play coming on the floor in both cases...again the difference was that Stoudemire and Diaw responded to a flagrant act, while Duncan responded to an unfortunate turn by a defender that caused a player to hit the floor.
An altercation could not escalate from the foot or so Stoudemire and Diaw came onto the floor, and altercation very well could have from the several feet Duncan came out...he was inside the 3 point line for crying out loud.
|
The rule is not based on potential, but what is actually happening on the court. Even in our rules sets we would not eject someone from a game just because they left the bench. The actual circumstances dictate what we call. The NBA once had a problem with players leaving the bench and having some very infamous fights that led to this rule. And if the NBA did not have such a rule, then people like yourself would be complaining the NBA is "thuggish" and not suitable for children. Wait a minute, people already have that opinion about the NBA and they have fewer fights than pretty much any other league as a result of their fines and suspension policies. Even the NHL put in a similar rule that prevents players coming off of the bench and now fights are pretty much a one on one affair in a sport that condones fighting.
We will just have to agree to disagree, because in the Duncan situation there was no fight or even contentious situation. The players involved did not even look at each other. When Nash was put into the boards, he got up ready to fight and as events escalated players were shoving and pushing and needed to be separated. Not the same thing.
Peace