Patrick vs. Stern

[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

[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.

[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.