Patrick vs. Stern

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

Unless you are Tim Duncan....then the same rule doesn't apply.

Actually, it's not the same rule. According to Stern, Duncan coming off the bench was to react to a hard foul, rather than an "altercation". The rule that applies to Stoudamire and Diaw is clear in that it says no player shall leave the bench area during an "altercation". If after the hard foul, there would've been some pushing and shoving, then Duncan would've probably been hit with the same penalty.

I listened to most of the Patrick/Stern conversation, and I found myself agreeing with the commissioner. Stern basically said - this is the rule, it's clear in how it's written and how it should be enforced. The owners voted to put in the rule and penalty. If they don't think it's appropriate, they should vote out the rule, and he would be happy to enforce whatever rule and penalty they vote in. It sounded as though he agreed with Patrick on the point that the fans are there to see all the players, and it's not fair that they don't get to see the teams with all their players because of some technicallity. Fine, he said, then don't go on the court. The players knew the rule, and went on the court anyway. Or, perhaps they forgot the rule, and the 6 asst. coaches didn't do their jobs in keeping them off. Maybe teams should have more than 6 asst. coaches? These are all points he brought up. Maybe the Suns should fire the asst. coaches assigned to keeping Stoudamire and Diaw off the court.

The rule is there, it's concrete, and he is there to enforce it. How is that any different than our position as officials? We may not personally agree with some rules, but do we get to ignore them on that basis? Or should we enforce the rules as they are given to us? Some rules give us judgement and leeway, others are straightforward. It sounds like the NBA and Stern followed the straightforward rule in this case.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Dan patrick made the commish sound like an *** trying to defend these suspensions.

That's in the eye of the beholder.
Seems to me the commissioner followed the rule, while Patrick wanted to rewrite the rule for ifs, ands and butts.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mick

That's in the eye of the beholder.

I agree. I thought the commish made mincemeat out of Patrick. Dan asked, "Do you really want this series decided by suspension because. . ."

And Stern cut him off at the knees. Basically saying, "I'm not going to let you get away with that. The series will be decided by the players who followed the rules. We're not bending the rules so that our ratings might be better for this series."

[Jurassic Referee]

The bottom line remains the same. Who cares? It's only the NBA, the WWE with a basketball.

And for the NBA boosters that disagree, go find a replay somewhere of the Cleveland/NJ game last night. I actually watched a few minutes of the 4th. quarter. I was fascinated for a while; you know, kinda like watching a trainwreck. Not for young eyes though, fer sure. Just one butt-ugly mess of a ball game. Both teams combined shot 4 for 32 in the last quarter. That's 12 1/2%, folks. You can rationalize that stat away by saying they played great defense though, which defense was usually comprised of holding, pushing, shoving, etc. On the bright side though, together they shot free throws at an amazing almost 60% clip for the whole game. Kidd alone missed 5 in a row during crunch time. Yup, the NBA......freaking faaaantastic!

[JRutledge]

I think what this situation shows is the fact the NBA is not setting out to make a team win. I love how Patrick on the "Mike and Mike Show" show tried to talk about how traveling and palming were called as if these are comparable examples. For one a fouls and violations are called by game officials. Fouls and violations are called during the game while this rule was decided by executives that have to make decisions based on video tape and procedures that higher-ups think is good for the game. Everyone does not have say in how the traveling rule is written as they might in what suspensions might be carried out if procedures are violated.

Basically the NBA cannot win. If they did not suspend the Suns players, then they would be accused of favoring the stars. The fact that they said this rule applies across the board; they are being criticized for "deciding the series." Everything is not about just what the fans want. Some things are about the integrity of the process or the competition. After all it is a competition.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

That's in the eye of the beholder.
Seems to me the commissioner followed the rule, while Patrick wanted to rewrite the rule for ifs, ands and butts.

That's what I saw.

I must have missed the follow-up interview to which W&S was referring.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's the zero-tolerance approach, and it's always going to yield these kind of results; sorta like a third-grader getting suspended for drawing a picture of himself holding a knife making a peanut butter sandwich.

Because some kids don't take well to peanut products?

I do understand having the tool for zero-tolerance. The time for zero-tolerance was when Roberto Alomar spit in John Hirschbeck's face, not when the Suns players did what they did.

[JugglingReferee]

Just checked the YouTube video.

Stoudamire came onto the court and was walking towards Nash, all before any of the pushing after the foul started.

So how could he be reacting to the pushing?

Until the extra pushing, there was nothing except a hard foul by Robert Horrible - and I bet it wasn't even reported yet. The NBA must have a messed up idea of what an altercation is, because I think it's clear that the altercation is the pushing afterwards.

In fact, when the altercation had started - Stoudamire was already walking back to his bench.

Stern is an idiot. But we all knew that anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbHstgkIeE

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Because some kids don't take well to peanut products?

I do understand having the tool for zero-tolerance. The time for zero-tolerance was when Roberto Alomar spit in John Hirschbeck's face, not when the Suns players did what they did.

The problem is, zero-tolerance doesn't leave any wiggle room. There's no room to judge each occurrance on its merits.
That's when you have to bend over backwards to justify not enforcing it sometimes, like with Duncan.

[JRutledge]

I think Greg Anthony of ESPN made a great point. The rule in this case needs to be black and white because it works. This is the only situation where this has been an issue all year. There was physical play last year and even this year and no one came off the bench. Derek Fisher got hit in the head by Baron Davis and no one came off the bench. The bottom line Stoudemire is a young player that lost his head and possibly cost his team the series. He should have known better. It is obvious his coaches knew the rule because they were pushing him back vigorously to get him back on the bench.

DUI laws are often black and white too. When the laws gave cops the opportunity to use interpretation, people would not go to jail or even lose their licenses. Now you get caught, you go to jail in just about every state I can think of no questions and no interpretations. If you leave that up to interpretation, then some people will go to jail and others might walk away and harm someone else. I would agree that not all laws work well with black and white application, but many do.

Peace

[blindzebra]

As for the non-altercation excuse for Duncan...which is worse, responding to a cheap shot that sent your teammate flying into the table during an "altercation" or walking onto the floor and possibly starting an "altercation"?

In my mind, Duncan's act was much more dangerous than anything Stoudemire and Diaw did.

Just one more reasons and a long line of reasons that the NBA is a joke.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

As for the non-altercation excuse for Duncan...which is worse, responding to a cheap shot that sent your teammate flying into the table during an "altercation" or walking onto the floor and possibly starting an "altercation"?

In my mind, Duncan's act was much more dangerous than anything Stoudemire and Diaw did.

Just one more reasons and a long line of reasons that the NBA is a joke.

Amen.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

As for the non-altercation excuse for Duncan...which is worse, responding to a cheap shot that sent your teammate flying into the table during an "altercation" or walking onto the floor and possibly starting an "altercation"?

In my mind, Duncan's act was much more dangerous than anything Stoudemire and Diaw did.

Just one more reasons and a long line of reasons that the NBA is a joke.

Considering that Duncan did not start anything, I think that point of view is very flawed. There was no altercation at all in the situation where Duncan took a step or two onto the court. The players got up and ran down the court.

And I am sure the NBA does not really care what you personally think, they are not getting your dollar anyway.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Considering that Duncan did not start anything, I think that point of view is very flawed.

What did Stoudamire or Diaw start?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What did Stoudamire or Diaw start?

I did not realize you had to start something. I thought the rule dealt with an altercation not about "starting something."

Once again, there was no "altercation" when Duncan was on the floor. The two situations are not the same on any level.

Peace