Patrick vs. Stern

[sj]

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by sj

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 ?

[Texas Aggie]

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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

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

[sj]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

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....

[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

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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.

[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".

[ColdShot]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

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

You beat me to it

[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.

[Old School]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

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