Patrick vs. Stern

[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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Considering that Duncan did not start anything, I think that point of view is very flawed.

What did Stoudamire or Diaw start?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What did Stoudamire or Diaw start?

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

[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.