Patrick vs. Stern

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.