Patrick vs. Stern

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

What?! You were in a Hooters and you watched the game?!

I think what some people are missing in this discussion is that you or I are not necessarily arguing the merits of the rule, just the fact the rule exists. In Stern's case, he is an employee of the owners, the owners voted in the rule as it currently stands, and he is enforcing it as written. Is it a bad rule? Maybe. Did it give an advantage to the Spurs in this case? Yep. But it's not Stern's fault for enforcing what the owners told him to enforce. We don't know if he contacted some of the owners after this went down to see if he did have any discretion in the suspension ruling. My guess is he didn't, and he did exactly what his bosses told him to do. I'm not aware of the league's definition of "altercation", but I have a feeling what happened in the Horry/Nash play falls under that definition, and the hard foul Duncan reacted to does not.

That makes his position no different than ours as officials. We are hired by supervisors to enforce the rules, not only as they are written, but as they tell us they are to be enforced. If a supervisor tells me his definition of a fight includes a player taking a swing, but missing, another player, than I don't get to make the decision during the game that, well, this is their star player, he really didn't mean it, it will affect the outcome of the game if I eject him, yada, yada. I do what I'm told, and I don't care if I think it's fair or not. That's what I think Stern did in this case. If it's not fair to the Suns, then blame the owners, don't blame Stern.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LarryS

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..

Can anyone show the rule on this before you start saying the NBA did not apply the rule across the board? Not sure how Duncan violated the rule when no one got into a fight or even got upset with each other on the play in question.

This point of view is about as silly as saying we do not call an intentional foul based on the actual definition of what "intentional" means. We all know the term "intentional foul" has nothing to do with an intentional act.

Peace

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What the NBA calls an "altercation" might not fit the wording of the rule or how the rule is *interpreted*.

Peace

"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.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This point of view is about as silly as saying we do not call an intentional foul based on the actual definition of what "intentional" means. We all know the term "intentional foul" has nothing to do with an intentional act.

Peace

Now who is being silly? This is comparing grapes and watermellons. Our rule states it does not have to be an intentional act to be an intentional foul. Since, as far as I know and please correct me if you have the information, the NBA does not have a written definition of altercation, Stern had a way out...just didn't take it.

Again, JMO...and you aren't going to change it.

[JRutledge]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LarryS

Now who is being silly? This is comparing grapes and watermellons. Our rule states it does not have to be an intentional act to be an intentional foul. Since, as far as I know and please correct me if you have the information, the NBA does not have a written definition of altercation, Stern had a way out...just didn't take it.

Again, JMO...and you aren't going to change it.

I do not think you actually know what terms like “apples and oranges” means. You cannot use the dictionary to show a definition of a word and apply it directly to a sport and the rules. If that was the case there would not be a "Definition" section in just about every rulebook I have ever seen in any sport. The term "try" is not same definition as you would find in a dictionary. So unless you show me how the NBA defines what an altercation is, then not sure you are talking about the same thing. This is why the term “Intentional Foul” does not apply to what we call on the court if you look up the word or terms in dictionary. Very little of what we call an intentional foul is based on what is actually “intentional.” If that was the case every last couple of minutes would result in an “Intentional Foul” when we all know the losing team is trying to foul to extend the game. Even the NF and NCAA have stated this is an acceptable practice.

Also how do you know what the NBA has written? Why don't you show me where in the NBA they do not have a policy? So I guess all this reference of a rule is just made up? Also for the record, this is not a "playing rule." This is a rule set by the league to judge conduct just like a state might have as it relates to how they deal with ejections and eligibility rules. Since you know so much, quote the rule? I have never said I know the wording of the rule, but I can take the word of the Commissioner and other NBA League Officials that consistently talk about how the rule came about and why they suspended the Suns players.

Peace

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Can anyone show the rule on this before you start saying the NBA did not apply the rule across the board? Not sure how Duncan violated the rule when no one got into a fight or even got upset with each other on the play in question.

Peace

Um, there was no "fight" in the on the Nash foul either.

Elson was upset. The official herded him away from Jones.
You can see him barking at Jones and the official when
he was down. Was it a milder "altercation"? Yes. Was it
an "altercation"? Yes!

Kerr said: "looked like they were going to get into it". It happened
30 feet from his seat... most likely he had a better view than you
did from Hooters....um, or maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1T8...elated&search=


http://www.nba.com/media/rule_book_2005-06.pdf

c. During an altercation, all players not
participating in the game must remain in
the immediate vicinity of their bench.
Violators will be suspended, without pay,
for a minimum of one game and fined
up to $35,000.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

Um, there was no "fight" in the on the Nash foul either.

Elson was upset. The official herded him away from Jones.
You can see him barking at Jones and the official when
he was down. Was it a milder "altercation"? Yes. Was it
an "altercation"? Yes!

Kerr said: "looked like they were going to get into it". It happened
30 feet from his seat... most likely he had a better view than you
did from Hooters....um, or maybe not.

Whether it was mild or not, there was an "altercation." The NBA policy/rule talks about "altercations." The fact that the Suns players left the bench for an "altercation" is the reason they got suspended. The policy or rule does not say how big or little the altercation has to be. Once again, the Knicks and Nuggets got into an actual FIGHT and no one left the bench. The fight even spilled into the stands and no one left the bench. Amazing how other NBA players knew the rule that they stayed off the court completely.

Originally Posted by ColdShot

http://www.nba.com/media/rule_book_2005-06.pdf

c. During an altercation, all players not
participating in the game must remain in
the immediate vicinity of their bench.
Violators will be suspended, without pay,
for a minimum of one game and fined
up to $35,000.

And this is why the Suns players were suspended? Did you see any Spurs players in the "altercation?" BTW, according to the NBA, the situation were Duncan was on the court was not considered an altercation. So he did not violate a rule.

Peace

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

BTW, according to the NBA, the situation were Duncan was on the court was not considered an altercation. So he did not violate a rule.

Peace

Right! The NBA "black and white" definition of "altercation"....
the one not found in any dictionary in the world nor in the NBA
rulebook. Got it now. IOW, whatever will be will be.

BTW, another Bowen "accident":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SPv...elated&search=

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

Right! The NBA "black and white" definition of "altercation"....
the one not found in any dictionary in the world nor in the NBA
rulebook. Got it now. IOW, whatever will be will be.

BTW, another Bowen "accident":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SPv...elated&search=

If I remember correctly you are not a basketball official right? That might be why you are having such a hard time understanding this concept. Even other individuals understand that concept I presented. And M&M eloquently put it into context about who the Commissioner works for and how they interpret this rule and how we interpret rules.

If you were, you would know that a simply word in basketball called a "try" is not found in the rulebook the same way it is under an actual dictionary. I just looked up the word "try" on a couple of online dictionaries and there was no reference to the basketball meaning or definition. I am sure the NBA is not concerned with the fact you cannot grasp how their rules are written. They did what they wanted to just like any league can. I do not like the policies of MLB, but it is what it is. So if you do not like the rule, get over it. The Suns were short in game 5 and they lost the game. They might just lose the series. The playoffs are about handling yourself with poise and the Spurs have won championships and the Suns have not.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And M&M eloquently put it into context about who the Commissioner works for and how they interpret this rule and how we interpret rules.

Why, thank you.

But you're still not gettin' off the hook until you explain how you could be at Hooters and have any focus on a TV...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Why, thank you.

But you're still not gettin' off the hook until you explain how you could be at Hooters and have any focus on a TV...

Let me put it this way. I do not go to Hooters for the girls, I never have. They are not my type. Too skinny and not the right kind of hair. The very first time I went to Hooters in the mid-90s, my girlfriend took me there for the food. I still go there with my current girlfriend all the time because of the food. My current girlfriend likes the food just as much as I do. Every time I go there now she goes with me. I am really not in to those girls. Hey, I do not like strip clubs either.

Secondly if you spend much time in Chicago, the entire restaurant (as other establishments) was focused on the Bulls (You could plug in the Bears, Cubs or Sox depending on which side of town you are on) game. I was the only person cheering for the Knicks with was easily 200 people in this restaurant if not more.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me put it this way. I do not go to Hooters for the girls, I never have. They are not my type. Too skinny and not the right kind of hair. The very first time I went to Hooters in the mid-90s, my girlfriend took me there for the food. I still go there with my current girlfriend all the time because of the food. My current girlfriend likes the food just as much as I do. Every time I go there now she goes with me. I am really not in to those girls. Hey, I do not like strip clubs either.

Secondly if you spend much time in Chicago, the entire restaurant (as other establishments) was focused on the Bulls (You could plug in the Bears, Cubs or Sox depending on which side of town you are on) game. I was the only person cheering for the Knicks with was easily 200 people in this restaurant if not more.

Peace

...sigh...I had such high hopes for you. But now you tell me you go to Hooters for the food, and you root for the Knicks? All this on top of being a Michigan fan. Maybe you're hopeless after all.

I've taken my whole family to Hooters, (they do actually have a good buffalo chicken sandwich), and it was my wife that noticed one of the waitress' "tricks", so to speak. When the waitress leaned on the table to talk to us, she put her arms in close to her body, which kinda squeezed her chest together, which created more cleavage. (I hadn't noticed...the arms, I mean.) Hey, whether it's a spectacular sunset, or a field full of beautiful flowers, sometimes I just have to marvel at the wonders of nature. That doesn't mean I get to pick any of the flowers, though...

So, how far off-topic can this thread get?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...sigh...I had such high hopes for you. But now you tell me you go to Hooters for the food, and you root for the Knicks? All this on top of being a Michigan fan. Maybe you're hopeless after all.

I will root for any team that is not the Bulls. I hate the Bulls with a passion and really hated them at that time. After all I am a Piston fan and I took great joy in the Bulls losing last night.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, how far off-topic can this thread get?

We are pretty much there. Anything to break the tension of such and important event.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We are pretty much there. Anything to break the tension of such and important event.

I know what you mean.

I wonder if they talk about Hooters the same way during Palestinian/Israeli talks?