Diaw/Amare suspended 1 game, Horry suspended 2 games

[Phntm]

Whole thing sounds like an angle shot...
Nice game sir.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Dan Patrick was really crappy in terms of questions and Stern sounded like a whiny little prick who was shocked that someone would dare question his authority.

I wish Dan Patrick had asked him: Aren't you rewarding a team for cheapshotting a player? And if this is how your going to always rule shouldn't every coach in the playoffs have a scrub player take down an opposing player infront of the other teams bench...hoping that one of the bench players loses his cool and gets himself suspended?

if the Suns are losing in the 4th in Game 5...why shouldn't MD have a Pat Burke or a Marcus Banks clobber one of the
Spurs near the SA bench? The worst case scenario is you lose Banks for the series and the best case is one or two Spurs get caught up in the moment and go onto the floor.

After all this I doubt the Spurs would come off the bench...but do u really lose anything by trying it? Banks will never play this series regardless.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish Dan Patrick had asked him: Aren't you rewarding a team for cheapshotting a player?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did, and I actually agreed with Stern on this one. Actually, Patrick didn't really ask. He answered for him. He explicitly said, "you're punishing the Suns because a Spurs player gave a cheap shot to a Suns player." And Stern's answer was correct: no, I'm punishing the Suns for not following a rule they all knew about.

Of all the arguments to be made, the subjective claim that, essentially, a Spurs cheapshot is being rewarded, is really false and flies in the face of causality. Sounds like political smearing tactics. I still disagree with the ruling, but mostly in that the Commissioner's office is acting like it's hands are tied here.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wish Dan Patrick had asked him: Aren't you rewarding a team for cheapshotting a player?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did, and I actually agreed with Stern on this one. Actually, Patrick didn't really ask. He answered for him. He explicitly said, "you're punishing the Suns because a Spurs player gave a cheap shot to a Suns player." And Stern's answer was correct: no, I'm punishing the Suns for not following a rule they all knew about.

Of all the arguments to be made, the subjective claim that, essentially, a Spurs cheapshot is being rewarded, is really false and flies in the face of causality. Sounds like political smearing tactics. I still disagree with the ruling, but mostly in that the Commissioner's office is acting like it's hands are tied here.

[/ QUOTE ]


But if Horry decides to foul/cheapshot Nash with the hope that it starts a fight and causes Suns players to come of the bench---then you are rewarding him and his team.

It is in way the result of both the rule and how Stern chooses to enforce it. If Stern used discretion in determining the punishment then it makes no sense for a player, Horry etc, to attempt to do this.

But if the rule is a simple no matter what, you get up off the bench your gone for a game, then it encourages cheapshotting because players in a heated game are almost always going to come off the bench unless the coaches are 6'8 and 300 pounds who can hold them back.

[B00T]

as someone who doesn't like the NBA, this is just more reason to never watch it

the suspensions were bogus even if they fit the rule, what's even more bogus is the refs are going to dictate this game

how can anyone watch this [censored]?

[Aloysius]

Just listened to Stern / Patrick. Stern says late in the interview "is it exactly fair, probably not, is it a red-letter rule, absolutely".

So I mean Stern understands it's not "fair". Ric Bucher in a Q&A made the point that he is "more about fairness than correct-ness". I think it's been shown most people are!

Stern brings up the point (was gonna mention this earlier), time and time again, that PHX assistants could've held Amare and Diaw back. Remembering the replay, the PHX assistant closest to Amare and Diaw was also shocked and outraged by the foul on Nash, and moved onto the court with them.

I think that underscores how stupid the rule is - and that in this particular situation, a very standard human reaction to seeing your franchise player getting knocked on his ass is taking a few steps onto the court.

Oh - Stern comes off pretty badly imo - I understand what he's saying and he has some valid points, but he's just whiny and overly emotional sounding.

-Al

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
But if Horry decides to foul/cheapshot Nash with the hope that it starts a fight and causes Suns players to come of the bench---then you are rewarding him and his team.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that's a poor assumption. Second, that's an incorrect conclusion.

Personally, I think the rule stinks and Stu and David's hands aren't tied quite as hard as they make it out. But you're beating a dead horse attacking it from your angle (I guess we all are from any angle, cuz Stern is straight up gangsta).

[RacersEdge]

I would just not use the word "reward" but just ask "why is the team that acted worse punished the least?"

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if Horry decides to foul/cheapshot Nash with the hope that it starts a fight and causes Suns players to come of the bench---then you are rewarding him and his team.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that's a poor assumption. Second, that's an incorrect conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that conclusion incorrect? You don't think giving up Horry for two games and getting one game without Stoudemire and Diaw is a reward for the Spurs? It seems like semantic quibbling to say anything else, to me. EDIT: Also, I don't think it's a poor assumption. It seems like tons of the talking heads are talking about how Horry has this reputation for being a classy, composed guy; that seems to me to make it more likely that he administered the foul on orders.

A couple of points I'm cribbing from King Kaufman over at Salon, whose column on this I enjoyed today:

[ QUOTE ]
If the rule is the rule, and all that matters is consistency, not applying the rule to the specifics of the situation, not taking into account the context and the damage done or any sense of fair play, what is the point of Stu Jackson's job? An intern could look at the video, see that Stoudemire and Diaw took a few steps, and announce the suspensions.

If all that matters is consistency, if the rule is the rule, why was Derek Fisher of the Utah Jazz not disciplined for breaking the dress code by showing up for Game 2 of the Jazz's series against the Golden State Warriors in a T-shirt and jeans? Sure, he'd just rushed in from New York where his infant daughter had had life-saving surgery earlier in the day, but the rule is the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming Fisher did actually show up in aforementioned clothes, not that it's terribly relevant to the argument.

[ThomasPHoolery]

Where was the outrage last year when the NBA injected itself into the competitive balance of last year's Western semi by suspending Jason Terry for game 6, when Stu Jackson said, "There was no option here. The rule is very clear cut." Michael Finley jumped on Jason Terry after the whistle blew in a competitive game w/ 3 seconds left, Terry then gives him a nice little closed fist tap in the junk.

Maybe we should change that rule too.

I honestly have no idea how this thing has blown up in the way that it has other than casual fans have taken a liking to the Suns (for better or worse-- actually almost certainly for worse), come in, watch games, don't understand the dynamics of the game, the rules, and disciplinary measures the league has put into place, then whine.

David Stern is absolutely 100% correct. The league owners have time and again decided this is the way they want the rules enforced. He is doing what he has been told to do. Him NOT suspending Amare and Diaw would have been a grave miscarriage of justice and the most egregious injection of the league office into the competitive dynamics of the game since he froze the Knicks envelope back in the day.