Patrick vs. Stern

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Totally incorrect yet again.

Nash did not immediately jump up, infact Stoudemire and Diaw both returned to their bench before Nash went after Horry. Now one could argue that at the time they come onto the floor Horry was sticking an elbow into Bells throat, but even that was near the time Nash got there and not when Nash was still lying on the floor.

But since when have you ever brought facts to the discussion.

The simple truth is SA was rewarded for thuggish behavior. One of the NBA's poster boys, once again got to skate, and because Stern lacked the common sense and gonads to rule fairly, what would otherwise have been a great series will be tainted.

In other words, everything that is wrong with the NBA...well not everything.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Totally incorrect yet again.

Nash did not immediately jump up, infact Stoudemire and Diaw both returned to their bench before Nash went after Horry. Now one could argue that at the time they come onto the floor Horry was sticking an elbow into Bells throat, but even that was near the time Nash got there and not when Nash was still lying on the floor.

I guess that is just based on how you look at it. You see Nash get up damn near immediately after he realizes what just happen. Nash charges Horry and is intercepted by officials and teammates. The main angle I see you do not even see Stoudemire in the picture. You have to see the angle from the end line to even see how far Stoudemire came out on the floor. But when you see the coaching staff push him back to the bench, you see how far away he came. It was not like he took a step or two toward the situation. He was damn near at half court. I guess you really need to look at the film again. After all you did put “blind” in your moniker.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

But since when have you ever brought facts to the discussion.

You argue like a little kid. When the discussion does not go your way, you start getting personal. Is this discussion too hard for you to handle? It sounds that way. Because most times you start calling names when someone thinks you are full of it (like you are right now). I have not one time got personal with you or accused you of anything other than having a flawed argument, which in my opinion you do.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The simple truth is SA was rewarded for thuggish behavior. One of the NBA's poster boys, once again got to skate, and because Stern lacked the common sense and gonads to rule fairly, what would otherwise have been a great series will be tainted.

In other words, everything that is wrong with the NBA...well not everything.

You sound like a fan boy. I know Golden State was not rewarded for anything when Davis gave an elbow Fisher and elbow, maybe because they have some damn self-control. I am a Pistons fan and I do not give Wallace a pass for his behavior. He even got T’d up tonight for not having self-control and he deserved it. Why could the Suns players not behave with more control?

I did not see any Spur players come off the bench during the same "altercation." I wonder why that was the case? Maybe because they are champions and the Suns have an MVP that cannot win any championships? Ya think?

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I guess that is just based on how you look at it. You see Nash get up damn near immediately after he realizes what just happen. Nash charges Horry and is intercepted by officials and teammates. The main angle I see you do not even see Stoudemire in the picture. You have to see the angle from the end line to even see how far Stoudemire came out on the floor. But when you see the coaching staff push him back to the bench, you see how far away he came. It was not like he took a step or two toward the situation. He was damn near at half court. I guess you really need to look at the film again. After all you did put “blind” in your moniker.



You argue like a little kid. When the discussion does not go your way, you start getting personal. Is this discussion too hard for you to handle? It sounds that way. Because most times you start calling names when someone thinks you are full of it (like you are right now). I have not one time got personal with you or accused you of anything other than having a flawed argument, which in my opinion you do.



You sound like a fan boy. I know Golden State was not rewarded for anything when Davis gave an elbow Fisher and elbow, maybe because they have some damn self-control. I am a Pistons fan and I do not give Wallace a pass for his behavior. He even got T’d up tonight for not having self-control and he deserved it. Why could the Suns players not behave with more control?

I did not see any Spur players come off the bench during the same "altercation." I wonder why that was the case? Maybe because they are champions and the Suns have an MVP that cannot win any championships? Ya think?

Peace

From your first reply to me:

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

Sounds kinda personal, huh?

I live in freaking Phoenix dude, I've seen the play and aftermath about 1000 times, my version of it is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the BS you were sprewing...and no I don't follow the Suns, and haven't watched an entire NBA game in probably 10 years.

FYI, we never saw a camera angle from the Spurs half of the court, now did we...and since the NBA handled all of this after the fact, we will never know...we do know that two of them came off the bench earlier.

For someone who claims to not want to get personal and waste your time, you sure respond all the time and almost always with at least one condescending, sarcastic comment. And I'm the one acting like a little kid...try looking up the word hypocrite.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

From your first reply to me:

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

Sounds kinda personal, huh?

That was offensive to you? Wow, if anything I was repeating your sentiment that you have discussed here several times. I hate to see what fans say to you and how you react when they say something really mean.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I live in freaking Phoenix dude, I've seen the play and aftermath about 1000 times, my version of it is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the BS you were sprewing...and no I don't follow the Suns, and haven't watched an entire NBA game in probably 10 years.

I cannot tell. You seemed all fired up about the way a league does something and you do not watch it. Once again, the NBA is not getting your dollar. Sorry for the insulting words.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

FYI, we never saw a camera angle from the Spurs half of the court, now did we...and since the NBA handled all of this after the fact, we will never know...we do know that two of them came off the bench earlier.

So. I do know that you cannot see any Spurs players on the court players on the court from the angles that have been shown, but you do see the Suns down by the incident. BTW, I am going to guess that the NBA had all the footage and footage you will never see from the game. Just a guess on my part.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

For someone who claims to not want to get personal and waste your time, you sure respond all the time and almost always with at least one condescending, sarcastic comment. And I'm the one acting like a little kid...try looking up the word hypocrite.

Just admit you are a fan boy and if you lived in San Antonio you would think the suspensions were warranted. I guess that is too personal for you to handle.

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That was offensive to you? Wow, if anything I was repeating your sentiment that you have discussed here several times. I hate to see what fans say to you and how you react when they say something really mean.



I cannot tell. You seemed all fired up about the way a league does something and you do not watch it. Once again, the NBA is not getting your dollar. Sorry for the insulting words.



So. I do know that you cannot see any Spurs players on the court players on the court from the angles that have been shown, but you do see the Suns down by the incident. BTW, I am going to guess that the NBA had all the footage and footage you will never see from the game. Just a guess on my part.



Just admit you are a fan boy and if you lived in San Antonio you would think the suspensions were warranted. I guess that is too personal for you to handle.

Peace

I love it when you prove my point...once again, you say you don't have time, you say you don't get personal...and here you are replying and once again sporting the condescending tone, with sarcastic comments.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I love it when you prove my point...once again, you say you don't have time, you say you don't get personal...and here you are replying and once again sporting the condescending tone, with sarcastic comments.

I admit that I am being very condescending but that is largely a result of your attitude. I am discussing an opinion that I happen to share with others and that I formed on my own. You are making this about some larger issue of how you feel about me. Remember you said you did not like the NBA but you are discussing it like a big time fan-boy. I am not the biggest fan of the NBA either, but that is largely because of the players I loved as a younger are gone. I do not watch as much, but I am still a big sports fan and follow the goings on of the NBA as well as other sports I do not watch regularly.

If you do not like the sarcastic comments, do not say things that would bring on such comments. Once again I was only responding to your point of view, I was talking about you at all. But like a little baby that gets their feelings hurt, you started throwing out insults. While trying to suggest that I am not giving facts that you have not disputed other than semantics. The NBA followed their rule and you do not like the interpretation even thought they have been applying this rule the same way for years. I have no problem throwing a couple of barbs back at you because I can do that. I just call it how I see it and you are acting like a little baby. But I guess I cannot point out that you are an admitted anti-NBA fan but you happen to live in Phoenix and have a strong opinion about what happen with a team you do not care about. I guess that is what you call sarcasm.

Peace

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I admit that I am being very condescending but that is largely a result of your attitude. I am discussing an opinion that I happen to share with others and that I formed on my own. You are making this about some larger issue of how you feel about me. Remember you said you did not like the NBA but you are discussing it like a big time fan-boy. I am not the biggest fan of the NBA either, but that is largely because of the players I loved as a younger are gone. I do not watch as much, but I am still a big sports fan and follow the goings on of the NBA as well as other sports I do not watch regularly.

If you do not like the sarcastic comments, do not say things that would bring on such comments. Once again I was only responding to your point of view, I was talking about you at all. But like a little baby that gets their feelings hurt, you started throwing out insults. While trying to suggest that I am not giving facts that you have not disputed other than semantics. The NBA followed their rule and you do not like the interpretation even thought they have been applying this rule the same way for years. I have no problem throwing a couple of barbs back at you because I can do that. I just call it how I see it and you are acting like a little baby. But I guess I cannot point out that you are an admitted anti-NBA fan but you happen to live in Phoenix and have a strong opinion about what happen with a team you do not care about. I guess that is what you call sarcasm.

Peace

So as officials we can't discuss a problematic ruling in basketball on an officials forum about basketball without being a fan boy, huh? Brilliant reasoning on your part.

So much of the NBA, whether we are fans or not, impact us as officials. Being aware of a problem with a rule...pointing out something equally or perhaps worse that isn't covered by that rule...feeling that the rules original intent wasn't being applied correctly and perhaps never was...are all valid points of discussion.

Critical thinking about rules application is a valuable exercise, and being that the NBA playoffs are about the only thing going where we all have access to the same experience right now, we should all be free to voice an opinion on the correctness of the situation; regardless of where we might live. Frankly, I don't care if you believe I don't care about the Suns or the NBA or not...I don't value your opinion enough to care.

Perhaps if you were actually as accepting of other peoples opinions as you like to claim instead of coming across like an arrogant jerk, I and others would not feel the need to tear into you for your opinion.

[JRutledge]

Wow, I have to be arrogant because I think your point of view does not hold water. Really original there BZ. Next time can you come up with something original than calling a person arrogant because they do not agree with you.

One of these days you will realize that no one here ultimately gives a damn about your opinion or my opinion for that matter.

We have never met big guy and likely never will. It is not like I am hanging on every word you have to say. Is that sarcastic enough for you there big guy?

Peace

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not see any Spur players come off the bench during the same "altercation." I wonder why that was the case? Maybe because they are champions and the Suns have an MVP that cannot win any championships? Ya think?

Peace

He, he: *You* sound like a Spurs fan boy, Rut.

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by 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.
Peace

"Players shall not leave the bench area during an altercation".

Do you know the definition of "altercation"?

http://dict.die.net/altercation/

"altercation
n : noisy quarrel [syn: affray, fracas]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Altercation \Al`ter*ca"tion\ (?; 277), n. [F. altercation, fr.
L. altercatio.]
Warm contention in words; dispute carried on with heat or
anger; controversy; wrangle; wordy contest. "

Didn't Ellis and Johnson have words? Wasn't Duncan on the playing
floor, inside the the three point line, while the clock was running and
when those words were exchanged?

"this case needs to be black and white..."

OK, Ellis and Johnson had a "warm contention in words". Duncan came
out on to the court and had to be restrained and pulled back to the
bench by Bowen. Black and white: he should be suspended by the letter
of the law. How can you say "this case needs to be black and white..."
and then say it doesn't apply to Duncan unless you are a Duncan fan boy/lap dog?


FWIW, when Stoudimire stood up no one had yet to say a word yet. They
all still had their mouths agape in shock. It's actually funny if you view the
tape: the entire Sun's bench has the exact same gaping expression.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Stop, please stop.!!! You cannot compare in any way, shape or form the DUI laws to a basketball game. This is a sporting event, and in the interest of fair play, Mr.Stern had a great opportunity to show the world that NBA ball is the best ball in the world, but in this case he passed. I can’t fault him though because he has made some great decisions in the past. So he kicks one here, but he still got a good batting average and a great commissioner to me.

I do not believe like you JRut and some of the other supporters of this rule that this rule is the big deterrent to stopping fighting in the NBA. The big deterrent to stopping the fighting is the big fines and suspensions handed out afterwards. Do you think Ron will go into the stands ever again?

I also disagree with the notion that the Suns players are not intelligent because they stepped out on the floor in this altercation. That is an insult to every NBA player, because I do not know of any player, including Tim Duncan, that would not come to check on their teammate in the event that they think he is hurt. That is a bogus argument and you really need to shut up trying to defend it.

The ends does not justify the means here. Whichever way you slice it, SA was rewarded for a cheap hit. If you want to call this smart bb, then it worked to perfection. We will be divided on this one, but just do me a favor and stop with the rule is black and white and it doesn’t need to change. That is truly the unintelligent way to approach this problem. I don’t want cast in stones rules that leaves no room for interpretation, that was written black in the 60’s and 70’s governing the game in 2007. May have been a great rule back then, but we are not living in the 60’s and 70’s anymore. The game is not the same as it was back then.

I have no dog in this fight. I would be equally mad if the table was reversed and Tim Duncan and Ginobili had to sit because of a cheap shot from the Suns. I am for the betterment of the game. Last, and the big point here, which I think we are trying to get you to see Mr.JRut, is that, others are going to pick up on this disgraceful act, and do it in their games. #1, we don’t want 2nd string players attacking 1st string players like what Horry did, in an attempt to start a melee, in hopes to get players suspended. That is the message that your idiotic thinking produces. That is why I say Greg Anthony is an idiot, he is stuck in yester-years and doesn’t want to move forward, like you are. You are encouraging cheap play by suggesting this rule doesn’t need to change. You are encouraging bench players to attack starting players just because they are getting beat. If I can take him out and you out, and we win the series because of it. I’m going to look like a saint.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

"Players shall not leave the bench area during an altercation".

Do you know the definition of "altercation"?

http://dict.die.net/altercation/

"altercation
n : noisy quarrel [syn: affray, fracas]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Altercation \Al`ter*ca"tion\ (?; 277), n. [F. altercation, fr.
L. altercatio.]
Warm contention in words; dispute carried on with heat or
anger; controversy; wrangle; wordy contest. "

Didn't Ellis and Johnson have words? Wasn't Duncan on the playing
floor, inside the the three point line, while the clock was running and
when those words were exchanged?

"this case needs to be black and white..."

OK, Ellis and Johnson had a "warm contention in words". Duncan came
out on to the court and had to be restrained and pulled back to the
bench by Bowen. Black and white: he should be suspended by the letter
of the law. How can you say "this case needs to be black and white..."
and then say it doesn't apply to Duncan unless you are a Duncan fan boy/lap dog?


FWIW, when Stoudimire stood up no one had yet to say a word yet. They
all still had their mouths agape in shock. It's actually funny if you view the
tape: the entire Sun's bench has the exact same gaping expression.

If you know anything about playing rules, you cannot use a dictionary definition to prove a point on any level. What the NBA calls an "altercation" might not fit the wording of the rule or how the rule is interpreted. Considering that no where in the dictionary definitions are you going to find how that relates to an NBA game, it is not a very good comparison.

Secondly I cannot stand the Spurs and Tim Duncan is the biggest whiner in the league. Outside of Rasheed Wallace Duncan cries more than babies in a nursery. When Duncan was ejected by Crawford in my opinion he deserved every bit of this and you can read my comments I made about him and the situation on this site.

I have been watching the NBA for years and was actually in Chicago watching the Knicks-Bulls game in a Chicago Hooters with some friends when Derek Harper and Jo Jo English got into a fight that help start this rule. Then I watched the Heat and the Knicks get into a similar fight when Charlie Ward was flipped over and thrown out of bounds by a Heat player during the playoffs and several players cleared the bench. There were players that sat out game 7 of that series and it changed the outcome. The NBA has applied that rule across the board despite who got hurt and who violated the rule. The Suns players are not that good to get that kind of treatment.

Peace

[LarryS]

Might as well jump in this...first let me state these opinions;

1) The Suns players messed up and should have known the rules. From the few times I have seen the tape, I think Stoudimire was already returning to or back at his bench when the "altercation" started becuase it started when Nash got up and his coach got to him while he was on the floor.

2) Using the definition of altercation...Duncan should have been suspended. Not surprised he wasn't as he probably get the best level of favorable treatment by the powers that be...similar to Lebron, Wade, Anthony, Shaq, Bryant and a few others (and we all know the stars get preferential treatment)...just not sure why Stoudimire seems to be a step below them...not a big step, but a step just the same.

3) Spurs have a reputation...fairly or not...of being VERY aggressive/borderline dirty. IMO, that is based on the play of a couple of players but it seems the entire organization gets painted with the broad brush some times.

Now, knowing that is my perception let me say that Stern "screwed the pooch" on this one. He had a couple of outs and did not take either. (1) He could have said that, using the Webster definition of altercation and a strict interpretation of that rule, Duncan would need to be suspended for his earlier act, but that would have been taking it to an illogical extreme. Given that Duncan would not be suspended, it seems equitable that no suspension be handed out to Stoudimire and Diaw because they were off floor before the altercation began to escalate. (2) Since the rule only states that a player receive a 1 game suspension for leaving the bench area but does not address when the suspension must be served, he has decided not to force Phoenix to be put at a disadvantage because of the flagrant and uncessary act of an opponent during the playoffs. Since the series has at least 2 more games, each player is suspended for one game but they do not both have to be out for the next game and he will let Phoenix decide who misses each game.


JMO, not that it matters.