Patrick vs. Stern
 

I heard an interview between Dan Patrick and David Stern on Stern enforcing the rule to keep the Phoenix players out the next game. Patrick would kind of agree with Stern but then again not really. Stern would just hold fast and say the rule had to be enforced. One exchange went something like this. Not quotes but close....

Patrick: But the Suns were reacting to the hard foul.

Stern: So does that mean we enforce the rule unless there is a hard foul??

Patrick: No. That's not what I mean. There had been hard fouls all night and they were tired of it.

Stern: Oh I see. So if there are several hard fouls then we don't follow the rule. Is that it??

Patrick: No that's not it....

etc. etc.

Scheez. What a maroon. Patricik would try to get wedges in there all the time but it didn't work. It just shows the lack of common sense these guys have. It was funny to listen to. If you can find it anywhere go listen.

Which is the maroon ?

While I do think the Suns players should be out if they left the bench, I also think that there is a lot of inconsistency in how these sorts of things are enforced. The problem with this event is the Suns weren't really to blame, at least not for starting it, and they got the harsher sentence. Does that mean that a team can instigate trouble, sacrifice one bench guy, and therefore get good players on the other side thrown out?

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

Maybe a fix would be to [in the future] increase the penalty for that flagrant to more than two games suspension, which may dissuade the foul from recurring; and the guy sitting on the bench may be more inclined to be appeased with the punishment and will remain sitting or elect to take the one game suspension.

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

They talked about that issue and Stern said that he has no problem looking into the idea of changing the rule in the off season. But that for now....

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

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.

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".

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

You beat me to it

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.

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.

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.

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

Actually, it's not the same rule. According to Stern, Duncan coming off the bench was to react to a hard foul, rather than an "altercation". The rule that applies to Stoudamire and Diaw is clear in that it says no player shall leave the bench area during an "altercation". If after the hard foul, there would've been some pushing and shoving, then Duncan would've probably been hit with the same penalty.

I listened to most of the Patrick/Stern conversation, and I found myself agreeing with the commissioner. Stern basically said - this is the rule, it's clear in how it's written and how it should be enforced. The owners voted to put in the rule and penalty. If they don't think it's appropriate, they should vote out the rule, and he would be happy to enforce whatever rule and penalty they vote in. It sounded as though he agreed with Patrick on the point that the fans are there to see all the players, and it's not fair that they don't get to see the teams with all their players because of some technicallity. Fine, he said, then don't go on the court. The players knew the rule, and went on the court anyway. Or, perhaps they forgot the rule, and the 6 asst. coaches didn't do their jobs in keeping them off. Maybe teams should have more than 6 asst. coaches? These are all points he brought up. Maybe the Suns should fire the asst. coaches assigned to keeping Stoudamire and Diaw off the court.

The rule is there, it's concrete, and he is there to enforce it. How is that any different than our position as officials? We may not personally agree with some rules, but do we get to ignore them on that basis? Or should we enforce the rules as they are given to us? Some rules give us judgement and leeway, others are straightforward. It sounds like the NBA and Stern followed the straightforward rule in this case.

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.

I agree. I thought the commish made mincemeat out of Patrick. Dan asked, "Do you really want this series decided by suspension because. . ."

And Stern cut him off at the knees. Basically saying, "I'm not going to let you get away with that. The series will be decided by the players who followed the rules. We're not bending the rules so that our ratings might be better for this series."

The bottom line remains the same. Who cares? It's only the NBA, the WWE with a basketball.

And for the NBA boosters that disagree, go find a replay somewhere of the Cleveland/NJ game last night. I actually watched a few minutes of the 4th. quarter. I was fascinated for a while; you know, kinda like watching a trainwreck. Not for young eyes though, fer sure. Just one butt-ugly mess of a ball game. Both teams combined shot 4 for 32 in the last quarter. That's 12 1/2%, folks. You can rationalize that stat away by saying they played great defense though, which defense was usually comprised of holding, pushing, shoving, etc. On the bright side though, together they shot free throws at an amazing almost 60% clip for the whole game. Kidd alone missed 5 in a row during crunch time. Yup, the NBA......freaking faaaantastic!:rolleyes:

I think what this situation shows is the fact the NBA is not setting out to make a team win. I love how Patrick on the "Mike and Mike Show" show tried to talk about how traveling and palming were called as if these are comparable examples. For one a fouls and violations are called by game officials. Fouls and violations are called during the game while this rule was decided by executives that have to make decisions based on video tape and procedures that higher-ups think is good for the game. Everyone does not have say in how the traveling rule is written as they might in what suspensions might be carried out if procedures are violated.

Basically the NBA cannot win. If they did not suspend the Suns players, then they would be accused of favoring the stars. The fact that they said this rule applies across the board; they are being criticized for "deciding the series." Everything is not about just what the fans want. Some things are about the integrity of the process or the competition. After all it is a competition.

Peace

That's what I saw.

I must have missed the follow-up interview to which W&S was referring.

Because some kids don't take well to peanut products? :D

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.

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

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.

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

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.<i></i>

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

What did Stoudamire or Diaw <b>start</b>?:confused:

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.

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.;)

I guess that is just based on how you look at it. You see Nash get up damn near immediately after he realizes what just happen. Nash charges Horry and is intercepted by officials and teammates. The main angle I see you do not even see Stoudemire in the picture. You have to see the angle from the end line to even see how far Stoudemire came out on the floor. But when you see the coaching staff push him back to the bench, you see how far away he came. It was not like he took a step or two toward the situation. He was damn near at half court. I guess you really need to look at the film again. After all you did put “blind” in your moniker.

You argue like a little kid. When the discussion does not go your way, you start getting personal. Is this discussion too hard for you to handle? It sounds that way. Because most times you start calling names when someone thinks you are full of it (like you are right now). I have not one time got personal with you or accused you of anything other than having a flawed argument, which in my opinion you do.

You sound like a fan boy. I know Golden State was not rewarded for anything when Davis gave an elbow Fisher and elbow, maybe because they have some damn self-control. I am a Pistons fan and I do not give Wallace a pass for his behavior. He even got T’d up tonight for not having self-control and he deserved it. Why could the Suns players not behave with more control?

I did not see any Spur players come off the bench during the same "altercation." I wonder why that was the case? Maybe because they are champions and the Suns have an MVP that cannot win any championships? Ya think?

Peace

From your first reply to me:

And I am sure the NBA does not really care what you personally think, they are not getting your dollar anyway.

Sounds kinda personal, huh?

I live in freaking Phoenix dude, I've seen the play and aftermath about 1000 times, my version of it is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the BS you were sprewing...and no I don't follow the Suns, and haven't watched an entire NBA game in probably 10 years.

FYI, we never saw a camera angle from the Spurs half of the court, now did we...and since the NBA handled all of this after the fact, we will never know...we do know that two of them came off the bench earlier.

For someone who claims to not want to get personal and waste your time, you sure respond all the time and almost always with at least one condescending, sarcastic comment. And I'm the one acting like a little kid...try looking up the word hypocrite.:rolleyes:

That was offensive to you? Wow, if anything I was repeating your sentiment that you have discussed here several times. I hate to see what fans say to you and how you react when they say something really mean.

I cannot tell. You seemed all fired up about the way a league does something and you do not watch it. Once again, the NBA is not getting your dollar. Sorry for the insulting words. :rolleyes:

So. I do know that you cannot see any Spurs players on the court players on the court from the angles that have been shown, but you do see the Suns down by the incident. BTW, I am going to guess that the NBA had all the footage and footage you will never see from the game. Just a guess on my part.

Just admit you are a fan boy and if you lived in San Antonio you would think the suspensions were warranted. I guess that is too personal for you to handle. ;)

Peace

I love it when you prove my point...once again, you say you don't have time, you say you don't get personal...and here you are replying and once again sporting the condescending tone, with sarcastic comments.

I admit that I am being very condescending but that is largely a result of your attitude. I am discussing an opinion that I happen to share with others and that I formed on my own. You are making this about some larger issue of how you feel about me. Remember you said you did not like the NBA but you are discussing it like a big time fan-boy. I am not the biggest fan of the NBA either, but that is largely because of the players I loved as a younger are gone. I do not watch as much, but I am still a big sports fan and follow the goings on of the NBA as well as other sports I do not watch regularly.

If you do not like the sarcastic comments, do not say things that would bring on such comments. Once again I was only responding to your point of view, I was talking about you at all. But like a little baby that gets their feelings hurt, you started throwing out insults. While trying to suggest that I am not giving facts that you have not disputed other than semantics. The NBA followed their rule and you do not like the interpretation even thought they have been applying this rule the same way for years. I have no problem throwing a couple of barbs back at you because I can do that. I just call it how I see it and you are acting like a little baby. But I guess I cannot point out that you are an admitted anti-NBA fan but you happen to live in Phoenix and have a strong opinion about what happen with a team you do not care about. I guess that is what you call sarcasm. ;)

Peace

So as officials we can't discuss a problematic ruling in basketball on an officials forum about basketball without being a fan boy, huh? Brilliant reasoning on your part.

So much of the NBA, whether we are fans or not, impact us as officials. Being aware of a problem with a rule...pointing out something equally or perhaps worse that isn't covered by that rule...feeling that the rules original intent wasn't being applied correctly and perhaps never was...are all valid points of discussion.

Critical thinking about rules application is a valuable exercise, and being that the NBA playoffs are about the only thing going where we all have access to the same experience right now, we should all be free to voice an opinion on the correctness of the situation; regardless of where we might live. Frankly, I don't care if you believe I don't care about the Suns or the NBA or not...I don't value your opinion enough to care.

Perhaps if you were actually as accepting of other peoples opinions as you like to claim instead of coming across like an arrogant jerk, I and others would not feel the need to tear into you for your opinion.

Wow, I have to be arrogant because I think your point of view does not hold water. Really original there BZ. Next time can you come up with something original than calling a person arrogant because they do not agree with you.

One of these days you will realize that no one here ultimately gives a damn about your opinion or my opinion for that matter.

We have never met big guy and likely never will. It is not like I am hanging on every word you have to say. Is that sarcastic enough for you there big guy? ;)

Peace

He, he: *You* sound like a Spurs fan boy, Rut. :D

"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. :eek:

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.

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

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.

What?! You were in a Hooters and you watched the <B>game</B>?! :eek:

I think what some people are missing in this discussion is that you or I are not necessarily arguing the merits of the rule, just the fact the rule exists. In Stern's case, he is an employee of the owners, the owners voted in the rule as it currently stands, and he is enforcing it as written. Is it a bad rule? Maybe. Did it give an advantage to the Spurs in this case? Yep. But it's not Stern's fault for enforcing what the owners told him to enforce. We don't know if he contacted some of the owners after this went down to see if he did have any discretion in the suspension ruling. My guess is he didn't, and he did exactly what his bosses told him to do. I'm not aware of the league's definition of "altercation", but I have a feeling what happened in the Horry/Nash play falls under that definition, and the hard foul Duncan reacted to does not.

That makes his position no different than ours as officials. We are hired by supervisors to enforce the rules, not only as they are written, but as they tell us they are to be enforced. If a supervisor tells me his definition of a fight includes a player taking a swing, but missing, another player, than I don't get to make the decision during the game that, well, this is their star player, he really didn't mean it, it will affect the outcome of the game if I eject him, yada, yada. I do what I'm told, and I don't care if I think it's fair or not. That's what I think Stern did in this case. If it's not fair to the Suns, then blame the owners, don't blame Stern.

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

"Might" not fit? "How the rule is interpreted."?

IOW, the rule isn't black and white as you said in your previous
posts. The rule, and the definition of "altercation", are subject
to interpretation. Right? You are flipping from it's "black and
white" to "how the rule is interpreted". Sounds like your point
of view is a shade of gray after all.

You need to make up your mind. :o

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. :D

Larry,

Can you quote the actual NBA Rule or policy (which it is more of a policy considering the NBA Officials do not decide on who is suspended and why)?

In the interviews that David Stern and Stu Jackson (NBA Basketball Operations?? and the guy that recommends all suspensions on conduct) they made it clear that the rule was black and white and that the Duncan situation did not fit the definition of an altercation. They also went on to say that the players in the "Duncan situation" did not even have words but ran up the court. All Dan Patrick could say was, "Should we make an exception because this will affect the entire series?" Now if that is all you got in a response, then that does not pass the test.

Look we are supposed to apply rules based on the way they are written and how the rules are interpreted. In this particular rule, the NBA wants to stop fighting and an escalation of fighting. Even in the Knicks-Nuggets fight in December, no one left the bench? A star player was involved in the fight? Why were those players smart enough not to leave the bench? I guess the Suns are not very smart.

Peace

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

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. :D

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.

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.

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

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. :rolleyes:

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

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... :D

Let me put it this way. I do not go to Hooters for the girls, I never have. They are not my type. Too skinny and not the right kind of hair. The very first time I went to Hooters in the mid-90s, my girlfriend took me there for the food. I still go there with my current girlfriend all the time because of the food. My current girlfriend likes the food just as much as I do. Every time I go there now she goes with me. I am really not in to those girls. Hey, I do not like strip clubs either. ;)

Secondly if you spend much time in Chicago, the entire restaurant (as other establishments) was focused on the Bulls (You could plug in the Bears, Cubs or Sox depending on which side of town you are on) game. I was the only person cheering for the Knicks with was easily 200 people in this restaurant if not more.

Peace

...sigh...I had such high hopes for you. But now you tell me you go to Hooters for the food, and you root for the Knicks? All this on top of being a Michigan fan. Maybe you're hopeless after all. :D

I've taken my whole family to Hooters, (they do actually have a good buffalo chicken sandwich), and it was my wife that noticed one of the waitress' "tricks", so to speak. When the waitress leaned on the table to talk to us, she put her arms in close to her body, which kinda squeezed her chest together, which created more cleavage. (I hadn't noticed...the arms, I mean.) Hey, whether it's a spectacular sunset, or a field full of beautiful flowers, sometimes I just have to marvel at the wonders of nature. That doesn't mean I get to pick any of the flowers, though...

So, how far off-topic can this thread get?

I will root for any team that is not the Bulls. I hate the Bulls with a passion and really hated them at that time. After all I am a Piston fan and I took great joy in the Bulls losing last night. ;)

We are pretty much there. Anything to break the tension of such and important event. :D

Peace

I know what you mean.

I wonder if they talk about Hooters the same way during Palestinian/Israeli talks? :D

Kudos to Nash for publicly voicing, in the Spurs tainted series win post-game, his opinion about the dumb rule and the silly interpretation.