Patrick vs. Stern

[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.

[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

[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 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...