Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ColdShot
"Might" not fit? "How the rule is interpreted."?
IOW, the rule isn't black and white as you said in your previous
posts. The rule, and the definition of "altercation", are subject
to interpretation. Right? You are flipping from it's "black and
white" to "how the rule is interpreted". Sounds like your point
of view is a shade of gray after all.
You need to make up your mind.  |
Larry,
Can you quote the actual NBA Rule or policy (which it is more of a policy considering the NBA Officials do not decide on who is suspended and why)?
In the interviews that David Stern and Stu Jackson (NBA Basketball Operations?? and the guy that recommends all suspensions on conduct) they made it clear that the rule was black and white and that the Duncan situation did not fit the definition of an altercation. They also went on to say that the players in the "Duncan situation" did not even have words but ran up the court. All Dan Patrick could say was, "Should we make an exception because this will affect the entire series?" Now if that is all you got in a response, then that does not pass the test.
Look we are supposed to apply rules based on the way they are written and how the rules are interpreted. In this particular rule, the NBA wants to stop fighting and an escalation of fighting. Even in the Knicks-Nuggets fight in December, no one left the bench? A star player was involved in the fight? Why were those players smart enough not to leave the bench? I guess the Suns are not very smart.
Peace