Patrick vs. Stern

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I'm afraid that part of the message is coming through loud and clear.

The message that comes through loud and clear to me is: stay on the freakin' bench!

[JRutledge]

If you do not want to get suspended, do not come off the damn bench. It does not matter how this started or who did what. Amare Stoudemire came off the bench like a fool and he was suspended along with his teammate.

This rule was put in almost 10 years ago after a fight in the playoffs between the Bulls and the Knicks in the United Center that spilled into stands. There was no hard rule and only the people that threw punches were ejected and the situation might not have escalated as it did without players flying off the bench.

Does anyone remember the Kermit Washington, Rudy Tomjanovich situation in the 70s? There were people coming off the bench from all different directions and Kermit Washington threw a punch at someone that probably was not trying to fight him. If these kinds of incidents did not take place I am not sure this would have ever been a rule in place at all.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Seems over-officious in my mind.

Those two players did not get in on the situation. They were held back by teammates and after that second of having being held back, they calmed down.

Steve Nash is a premier player in the league. Robert Horrible is not.

This is clearly a case where the spirit of the rule should trump any need for "the letter of the law". Stern had the chance to show that he understands human nature to protect a valuable team and league asset and the heat of playoff competition. Instead, he showed he has no "things that hang from the squirrel".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Seems over-officious in my mind.

Those two players did not get in on the situation. They were held back by teammates and after that second of having being held back, they calmed down.

Steve Nash is a premier player in the league. Robert Horrible is not.

This is clearly a case where the spirit of the rule should trump any need for "the letter of the law". Stern had the chance to show that he understands human nature to protect a valuable team and league asset and the heat of playoff competition. Instead, he showed he has no "things that hang from the squirrel".

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.

[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

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The message that comes through loud and clear to me is: stay on the freakin' bench!

I agree. If we adjust the rule and allow players to leave the bench under certain circumstances (what ever they may be) we open a huge can of worms IMO.
I do think it’s very unfortunate how it turned out. I does seem unfair that the Suns ended up with 2 suspensions when it was the Spurs who started this mess. But those two players for the Suns knew darned well that they weren’t supposed to leave the bench.

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The message that comes through loud and clear to me is: stay on the freakin' bench!

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

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

You beat me to it

[Old School]

I have argued this before and will continue to argue it. Make it a technical foul, that's harsh and sends the same message. You don't need to eject players for coming off the bench to aid their teammate and not participating in the fight. That's like wiping ********. You have to actually throw a punch to be ejected. The punishment here doesn't fit the crime. This league has never been about just following the rules. To some extent you are rewarding inappropiate behavior here. The rules are designed to create a fair and balance contest. How is this fair to the Suns? You knock the crap out of my star point guard, he could have been injured more seriously than what it was, then you suspend 2 of my starters for this same act on my point guard!!!! Are you serious? You don't let another team benefit from this type of conduct, unless of course, you want to make sure Spurs win.

[Adam]

We've told you this before. The two players weren't suspended for what was done to their point guard. They were suspended for their reaction to it.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

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

[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.